6 ms·

Tried Glass. My mini review: 1) Huge potential - something like this will be the next "iPhone" 2) Headaches - 2-3 hrs of intermittent usage would give me a he

Tried Glass. My mini review: 1) Huge potential - something like this will be the next "iPhone" 2) Headaches - 2-3 hrs of intermittent usage would give me a headache without fail 3) Battery Life... BATTERY LIFE 4) Surprisingly hostile reactions in some places (restaurants etc) 5) Novelty wears off fast then what? Returned with thanks to friend kind enough to lend it to me. Not something I would buy until 1) Price is in the 2-300$ range 2) Battery life is 5x 3) At least one Killer app

onion2k 12y ago
4 isn't particularly surprising. People rightly believe that they have the right to decide who records them. A stranger walking in with a camera when they're in an intimate/family/business situation feels incredibly intrusive. If you walked in with your phone held out in front of you as if you were recording you'd get the same reaction.
- frou_dh 12y ago
  Such reactions are wonderfully captured in Surveillance Camera Man 1-6: http://www.youtube.com/user/SurveillantCameraMan http://www.youtube.com/user/SurveillantCameraMan
  - xd 12y ago
    Interesting experiment, but for the most part I wouldn't expect google glass users to walk up to strangers and record them directly like this.
  - netcan 12y ago
    I disagree. That's an example of strange unsolicited attention from a stranger is perceived as hostile. He could have been pointing a picture of the Virgin Mary at them and gotten a similar reaction.
  - Aoyagi 12y ago
    It's nice to see that expecting any kind of privacy in the US is silly, especially considering the channel has been on for over a year.
- greggman 12y ago
  This reaction seems very luddite to me. I'm not saying I don't understand it. Rather I'm saying it's a product of now and will have to change over time. If some blind guy walked in with his Google Glass connected to his brain so he could see and was ask to remove them do you think the "please remove your glasses" would be acceptable? "But sir, I can't see without these as I'm blind. Are you really going to discriminate against blind people?". Cameras embedded in eyes are coming. First they'll be for the blind. Then they'll be better than real eyes and probably be used for soldiers. Then they'll become fashion/must have along the same lines as a smartphone is today for most people. When friends can all see in infrared in the dark and you can't or can zoom in and read something small thing 600 meters away, or can drive through fog with their augmented reality eyes or recall whatever they need on demand few people will stay un-augmented. I get that people don't want to be recorded. I just see it as they have no right not to be recorded because they have no right to choose how I remember things. If we invented a tech that could read my memory and produce a video then what? They've already invented digital memory that can be connect to brains. So if my brain was digital would that make a difference? If you don't want me to see you don't go out in public. Past that you have no right to decide how I remember you. Whether it's with my memory of you, a sketch I made, a picture I took or, a video I recorded. Those are all just augmented versions of me.
  - abdullahkhalids 12y ago
    Society disagrees with you. Current societies have a rule that I have in most cases a right to be not recorded by you, even in public spaces. This is not always made a law, but is a general norm of society. Your hypotheticals about digital memories: we will cross that bridge when we get there.
    - aninhumer 12y ago
      My impression is these days society doesn't care about recording in public spaces unless you're actually following someone around with a camera without their consent. There were similar objections when camera phones first came out, but people eventually realised that just having the camera doesn't mean you're recording everything around you. I suspect there will be a similar realisation with glass.
- sekasi 12y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong.. but I feel this argument is getting a little bit old in an era where we're being filmed everywhere by everything from subway cameras to iPhones. To me, one of Glass's biggest problem has always been its looks. But this isn't an iPhone on your head. We can't compare this to any polished products anywhere. It's a cellphone in a briefcase. 'Would you want a wearable computer on your head' ? - Answer will be no, generally. 'Would you like sunglasses that can do a little bit more than just being sunglasses?' - Answer is now not as obvious. I've used Glass for a few months now and I don't think it's a consumer product as it stands. It WILL be, but it's not a consumer product now. Think certain sectors and use them 'for a purpose'.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong.. but I feel this argument is getting a little bit old in an era where we're being filmed everywhere by everything from subway cameras to iPhones. On the contrary, the argument has never been more relevant than in an era when increasingly pervasive surveillance would otherwise be taken for granted. Once Pandora's box is open, it will be almost impossible to close it. Pandora's box isn't really full of cameras, though, it's full of all the recording and image processing and data mining that goes with them. You can't do those things without the ubiquitous cameras, but the cameras are usually the only part of the system you can see and do something about, so once the cameras are in you'll never be quite sure who is doing what on the other side of them.
  - danparsonson 12y ago
    > I'm not saying you're wrong.. but I feel this argument is getting a little bit old in an era where we're being filmed everywhere by everything from subway cameras to iPhones. That's a fair point but personally I still feel there are some important differences. CCTV footage is usually used (ostensibly) for security or logistical purposes (e.g. traffic management) and comparatively rarely ends up on YouTube or Facebook. Glass footage on the other hand is acquired by a private individual with less visible motives and no oversight. That's not to say that CCTV footage is never abused or personal footage usually is, but on balance I would expect more people to be concerned about being recorded by a random stranger than by a random shop. Secondly, the 'almost covert' nature of Glass makes it feel to me inherently creepier - you can see if someone is pointing a phone or standalone video camera at you, but if someone looks your way wearing Glass, are they recording you? I expect many people (particularly women, given some of the websites out there) would feel nervous about that. It's easier to consent to being recorded when you know its happening, and therefore also easier to prevent it if you don't consent. I expect that a person holding a phone in front of them everywhere they went as if filming would experience a similar level of hostility to that reported by some Glass users.
- ehurrell 12y ago
  What's interesting is that some recording is acceptable to people. A friend researches lifelogging (methods to record your life experience). He has worn a Sensecam (a device that takes still pictures every 30 seconds all day long, with a button for 'I am using the restroom now') with no complaints from anyone. He explains what he's doing and they are fine (it's very visible hanging around his neck). He asked a student to wear a Sensecam with a sound recorder and noone wanted to be anywhere near that guy, because sound was a record they could be held to. I see the potential in such devices, but there is a balance that has to be respected, between the public and the private.
  - Loughla 12y ago
    Genuine question; what could a sensecam possibly be useful for?
    - cheshire137 12y ago
      Sounds like a fun way to remember the details of each day. Could also be a way to get decent snapshots without fumbling for your phone, since the frequency is so high. I think the Narrative camera looks nicer and is smaller than Sensecam. http://getnarrative.com http://getnarrative.com
    - wrongc0ntinent 12y ago
      Alzheimer's patients.
    - ehurrell 12y ago
      It's got a couple of 'outside research' uses, the one I think is least trivial is as a tool for Alzheimer's suffers to review their short-term memory. It makes a real difference to their quality of life, improves their recall and gives them more confidence around their memory.
rimantas 12y ago
Don't you think that your points 2-5 contradict the 1)?
- z92 12y ago
  2-5 explains why it's still "potential", and the hurdles it should cover for turning "actual".
  - gradstudent 12y ago
    3 indicates it may have potential. 2, 4 and 5 tell me Glass is unhealthy and unwelcome and frankly a bit pointless.
    - jonmrodriguez 12y ago
      2 can be fixed with better optics. 5 will be solved when there's a killer app.
manojit 12y ago
Word Lens is a killer app.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Only if you travel to places which use a different language.
  - jsemrau 12y ago
    Data roaming charges.
    - rubinelli 12y ago
      It uses a local database.
    - sekasi 12y ago
      No. Word lens doesn't have to use data. The glass version works without any connection whatsoever.
nnnnni 12y ago
Regarding #2, I tried someone's pair a convention for FIVE MINUTES (or less!) -- instant migraine that lasted the rest of the day. It was horrible. It felt like I was staring at a CRT that was set to a 60 Hz refresh rate.
gte910h 12y ago
While I think these artists have some problems, this second panel so completely captures why I think google glass gets such a negative reaction from people around it at times >4) Surprisingly hostile reactions in some places (restaurants etc) http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole
ulfw 12y ago
How is it 'the next iPhone' when the novelty wears off fast and then there's not much use, when there is no killer app, when people react hostile towards it and it gives you headaches? I mean seriously.

onion2k 12y ago

4 isn't particularly surprising. People rightly believe that they have the right to decide who records them. A stranger walking in with a camera when they're in an intimate/family/business situation feels incredibly intrusive. If you walked in with your phone held out in front of you as if you were recording you'd get the same reaction.

frou_dh 12y ago
Such reactions are wonderfully captured in Surveillance Camera Man 1-6: http://www.youtube.com/user/SurveillantCameraMan http://www.youtube.com/user/SurveillantCameraMan
- xd 12y ago
  Interesting experiment, but for the most part I wouldn't expect google glass users to walk up to strangers and record them directly like this.
- netcan 12y ago
  I disagree. That's an example of strange unsolicited attention from a stranger is perceived as hostile. He could have been pointing a picture of the Virgin Mary at them and gotten a similar reaction.
- Aoyagi 12y ago
  It's nice to see that expecting any kind of privacy in the US is silly, especially considering the channel has been on for over a year.
greggman 12y ago
This reaction seems very luddite to me. I'm not saying I don't understand it. Rather I'm saying it's a product of now and will have to change over time. If some blind guy walked in with his Google Glass connected to his brain so he could see and was ask to remove them do you think the "please remove your glasses" would be acceptable? "But sir, I can't see without these as I'm blind. Are you really going to discriminate against blind people?". Cameras embedded in eyes are coming. First they'll be for the blind. Then they'll be better than real eyes and probably be used for soldiers. Then they'll become fashion/must have along the same lines as a smartphone is today for most people. When friends can all see in infrared in the dark and you can't or can zoom in and read something small thing 600 meters away, or can drive through fog with their augmented reality eyes or recall whatever they need on demand few people will stay un-augmented. I get that people don't want to be recorded. I just see it as they have no right not to be recorded because they have no right to choose how I remember things. If we invented a tech that could read my memory and produce a video then what? They've already invented digital memory that can be connect to brains. So if my brain was digital would that make a difference? If you don't want me to see you don't go out in public. Past that you have no right to decide how I remember you. Whether it's with my memory of you, a sketch I made, a picture I took or, a video I recorded. Those are all just augmented versions of me.
- abdullahkhalids 12y ago
  Society disagrees with you. Current societies have a rule that I have in most cases a right to be not recorded by you, even in public spaces. This is not always made a law, but is a general norm of society. Your hypotheticals about digital memories: we will cross that bridge when we get there.
  - aninhumer 12y ago
    My impression is these days society doesn't care about recording in public spaces unless you're actually following someone around with a camera without their consent. There were similar objections when camera phones first came out, but people eventually realised that just having the camera doesn't mean you're recording everything around you. I suspect there will be a similar realisation with glass.
sekasi 12y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong.. but I feel this argument is getting a little bit old in an era where we're being filmed everywhere by everything from subway cameras to iPhones. To me, one of Glass's biggest problem has always been its looks. But this isn't an iPhone on your head. We can't compare this to any polished products anywhere. It's a cellphone in a briefcase. 'Would you want a wearable computer on your head' ? - Answer will be no, generally. 'Would you like sunglasses that can do a little bit more than just being sunglasses?' - Answer is now not as obvious. I've used Glass for a few months now and I don't think it's a consumer product as it stands. It WILL be, but it's not a consumer product now. Think certain sectors and use them 'for a purpose'.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong.. but I feel this argument is getting a little bit old in an era where we're being filmed everywhere by everything from subway cameras to iPhones. On the contrary, the argument has never been more relevant than in an era when increasingly pervasive surveillance would otherwise be taken for granted. Once Pandora's box is open, it will be almost impossible to close it. Pandora's box isn't really full of cameras, though, it's full of all the recording and image processing and data mining that goes with them. You can't do those things without the ubiquitous cameras, but the cameras are usually the only part of the system you can see and do something about, so once the cameras are in you'll never be quite sure who is doing what on the other side of them.
- danparsonson 12y ago
  > I'm not saying you're wrong.. but I feel this argument is getting a little bit old in an era where we're being filmed everywhere by everything from subway cameras to iPhones. That's a fair point but personally I still feel there are some important differences. CCTV footage is usually used (ostensibly) for security or logistical purposes (e.g. traffic management) and comparatively rarely ends up on YouTube or Facebook. Glass footage on the other hand is acquired by a private individual with less visible motives and no oversight. That's not to say that CCTV footage is never abused or personal footage usually is, but on balance I would expect more people to be concerned about being recorded by a random stranger than by a random shop. Secondly, the 'almost covert' nature of Glass makes it feel to me inherently creepier - you can see if someone is pointing a phone or standalone video camera at you, but if someone looks your way wearing Glass, are they recording you? I expect many people (particularly women, given some of the websites out there) would feel nervous about that. It's easier to consent to being recorded when you know its happening, and therefore also easier to prevent it if you don't consent. I expect that a person holding a phone in front of them everywhere they went as if filming would experience a similar level of hostility to that reported by some Glass users.
ehurrell 12y ago
What's interesting is that some recording is acceptable to people. A friend researches lifelogging (methods to record your life experience). He has worn a Sensecam (a device that takes still pictures every 30 seconds all day long, with a button for 'I am using the restroom now') with no complaints from anyone. He explains what he's doing and they are fine (it's very visible hanging around his neck). He asked a student to wear a Sensecam with a sound recorder and noone wanted to be anywhere near that guy, because sound was a record they could be held to. I see the potential in such devices, but there is a balance that has to be respected, between the public and the private.
- Loughla 12y ago
  Genuine question; what could a sensecam possibly be useful for?
  - cheshire137 12y ago
    Sounds like a fun way to remember the details of each day. Could also be a way to get decent snapshots without fumbling for your phone, since the frequency is so high. I think the Narrative camera looks nicer and is smaller than Sensecam. http://getnarrative.com http://getnarrative.com
  - wrongc0ntinent 12y ago
    Alzheimer's patients.
  - ehurrell 12y ago
    It's got a couple of 'outside research' uses, the one I think is least trivial is as a tool for Alzheimer's suffers to review their short-term memory. It makes a real difference to their quality of life, improves their recall and gives them more confidence around their memory.

rimantas 12y ago

Don't you think that your points 2-5 contradict the 1)?

z92 12y ago
2-5 explains why it's still "potential", and the hurdles it should cover for turning "actual".
- gradstudent 12y ago
  3 indicates it may have potential. 2, 4 and 5 tell me Glass is unhealthy and unwelcome and frankly a bit pointless.
  - jonmrodriguez 12y ago
    2 can be fixed with better optics. 5 will be solved when there's a killer app.

manojit 12y ago

Word Lens is a killer app.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Only if you travel to places which use a different language.
- jsemrau 12y ago
  Data roaming charges.
  - rubinelli 12y ago
    It uses a local database.
  - sekasi 12y ago
    No. Word lens doesn't have to use data. The glass version works without any connection whatsoever.

nnnnni 12y ago

Regarding #2, I tried someone's pair a convention for FIVE MINUTES (or less!) -- instant migraine that lasted the rest of the day. It was horrible. It felt like I was staring at a CRT that was set to a 60 Hz refresh rate.

gte910h 12y ago

While I think these artists have some problems, this second panel so completely captures why I think google glass gets such a negative reaction from people around it at times >4) Surprisingly hostile reactions in some places (restaurants etc) http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole

ulfw 12y ago

How is it 'the next iPhone' when the novelty wears off fast and then there's not much use, when there is no killer app, when people react hostile towards it and it gives you headaches? I mean seriously.