6 ms·

I was part of the first batch of Glass Explorers to receive the device in early 2013. I was extremely optimistic about Glass before getting one of my own, but i

by csallen 12y ago

I was part of the first batch of Glass Explorers to receive the device in early 2013. I was extremely optimistic about Glass before getting one of my own, but it only took a couple of months for that optimism to fade, and I've only worn them two or three times in the past year. As others have pointed out, the cost of using Glass is high, and I'm not just talking about the monetary cost. There's a social cost as well, as lots of people will stop you in public to have a conversation about Glass. Most of them are just curious, but I've encountered my fair share of people who are judgement or even overtly hostile. (I live in SF, which is a fairly forward-thinking city, so I imagine it was worse for people in other areas.) Based on my experiences, it seems that when you merely possess technology, people tend to acknowledge and refer to it distinctly. However, when you wear technology, people increasingly conflate you and your character with the technology itself. The difference between walking around with a phone in your hand and walking around wearing Glass is the difference between carrying a tube of paint and painting your face green. In my opinion this was predictable and Google should have anticipated it. (This is why studying psychology is important.) They should've focused on giving early Explorers an "excuse" to wear Glass, but they did the opposite. Ideally, we could've presented ourselves by saying, "I'm wearing this because I'm a tester. Want to try them on?" Instead, more often than not, conversations would begin with the other party saying, "So you paid $1500 for these?" That's not a great starting point in any way, shape, or form. I've heard that things were similar when headphones first started catching on for mainstream use. The difference is that headphones were worth the cost. By contrast, the incremental improvements that Glass makes over a smartphone aren't worth the social/physical costs of wearing something on your face.

smacktoward 12y ago
> it seems that when you merely possess technology, people tend to acknowledge and refer to it distinctly. However, when you wear technology, people increasingly conflate you and your character with the technology itself. This is because things you choose to wear are fashion choices, and the whole reason people choose one fashion over another is to make a statement about who they are. In this respect, Glass is no different than regular glasses; all regular glasses serve the same functional purpose of correcting impaired vision, but a pair of (say) Warby Parkers also make a particular statement about the personality of the person wearing them. The chasm Glass has fallen into is that the fashion meaning of a particular thing is decided collectively by the culture, not by the people who created it. And the culture has collectively decided that the fashion statement Glass makes is "I am a turbo nerd."
- bri3d 12y ago
  I think the friction is because the statement is much worse than "I am a turbo nerd." Glass (rightfully or not) has come to stand for both useless trinkets for the tech-wealthy and pervasive surveillance of the masses by a large corporation, so wearing it really comes off as saying "I have more money than you and I'm going to use it to let Google record videos of you too!" A camera-less Google Glass at a lower pricepoint would simply say "I am a turbo nerd" and would probably be much more acceptable.
  - cheeko1234 12y ago
    A camera-less Google Glass is an amazing idea! The question is what features will be lost and what other sensors are needed?
    - natch 12y ago
      Unfortunately Google has already tainted the entire category of eye wearables. It will be very hard to establish acceptance because even if you use a device without a camera, people will think it does have a camera.
  - geofft 12y ago
    I tried taping over the camera in my Glass, because I don't use that feature at all, and I don't want anyone to think I'm using it. It turns out that there's also an ambient light sensor in there that adjusts the brightness, so you can't see anything if you do that. So my Glass goes unused, because I don't feel comfortable wearing it anywhere.
    - natch 12y ago
      >I don't want anyone to think I'm using it. Moot now if you're not using it, but you know, even if your tape was as big as a golf ball, as a passerby I'm not going to know or think that your camera is covered, because I avoid looking anywhere near the things. And for all I know it could be a hardware hacked version with the camera hole elsewhere. So your goal was not being achieved. And it still might be recording audio. If you're wearing it, I have to take your word for it. If you're not, I don't.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
daeken 12y ago
My experience is similar to yours; I got mine about a year ago and for the first 3-4 months I used them heavily, but I can't recall the last time I really used them. However, not being in SF, my experience with people's reactions has been very, very different. In CT and NYC, I had 100% positive responses; no exceptions. Everyone was interested and asked questions, and I'd often offer to let them try it out. In SF (and to an extent, Portland), I had many negative responses to it. Quite odd for being much more tech-centric places.
- 0xffff2 12y ago
  I'm not surprised by that at all. I would theorize that there is a strong correlation between tech consciousness and privacy consciousness, and that where the presence of both is high, the privacy conscious aspect dominates.
- arebop 12y ago
  I disagree with the characterization of SF as forward-thinking. There are many people with big ideas and willing to undertake risky endeavors, but there are also many people who vehemently resent "techies." I think most SF citizens regard "techies" as mildly obnoxious. Overall, I find that SF is relatively tolerant of diversity, /except/ when it comes to people working in STEM disciplines, and so wearing Glass in SF is really asking for trouble.
  - mjn 12y ago
    I think that's mostly a socioeconomic issue in SF, very similar to how many New Yorkers resent bankers.
shostack 12y ago
> By contrast, the incremental improvements that Glass makes over a smartphone aren't worth the social/physical costs of wearing something on your face. Yet... I personally think they launched without a killer app. Comparing against headphones, listening to music in a portable and private manner was novel and a "killer app." To your point, today's mobile devices cover off on a wide range of capabilities, and my sense is that Glass hasn't provided an app that was "killer" enough to overcome the stigma and eventually erode it. Didn't help that a large % of the fashion-conscious out there felt it was ugly as sin. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes Apple to wearables sexy and acceptable. They are smart to start with a watch since the form factor is understood and not dramatically different.
- njharman 12y ago
  > I personally think they launched without a killer app. The killer app, the one that will override peoples fears (by praying on them) is 24/7 recording to the cloud. The first mugging/assault that is foiled (or perpetrators caught) cause their faces and actions were streamed realtime to not personal storage will get every paranoid parent and frightened wealthy person wanting one.
  - linker3000 12y ago
    The next mugging where the perp's first move (way after donning a balaclava) is to disable the glasses with a baseball bat to the head, or by using a can of spray paint, leaving the victim sprawled on the ground with a gloss-painted face, will also make the news.
    - alexbecker 12y ago
      The whole point is that that would be ineffective with immediate cloud backup. Presumably you've already seen them by the time they destroy the glasses.
      - klibertp 12y ago
        I had to google "balaclava", but I think even immediate cloud backup would be ineffective against masked person and/or surprise attack from behind. It would be really good for dealing with police officers who go around destroying phones and other similar situations, so it wouldn't be completely useless either.
gdulli 12y ago
> By contrast, the incremental improvements that Glass makes over a smartphone aren't worth the social/physical costs of wearing something on your face. Am I crazy for finding the smartphone form ideal? I want something I can fit in my pocket easily, take it out quickly and casually as many times as needed, but mostly it should be put away. Are these $1500 glasses fragile? Can they be put in a pocket or will they break without a case? How big is the case? Likely much larger than a smartphone. I always have to be responsible for those glasses when I'm not wearing them one way or another. I'm not interested in increasing the amount of time I spend online, just the convenience. Glasses won't solve that. I won't even be willing to use contacts when they're available in that form.
- WiseWeasel 12y ago
  I'd like my communication device to crawl out of my pocket, stand up on my shoulder, and talk into my ear when someone calls.
  - grayclhn 12y ago
    So, um, you're still wearing your bluetooth earpiece as an accessory, then? Bold choice.
Pxtl 12y ago
I'm betting folks outside of SF wouldn't even know what it is. I think they missed the market a bit - don't target the tech-fashion group with a device like that. Wait until you can get something actually slick. Something fashionable with some nice transition lenses for that market. The spartan, minimalist headband-with-a-computer on it device? Market that thing at sporty types. Runners, hikers, cyclists. A lightweight hybrid of a GoPro and a smartwatch that's hands-free? People could look past battery, price, and fashion issues for that, and lots of extreme-sports-types already do wearable cameras.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  People definitely know what Google Glass is, nationally. It was covered extensively by national news media, and featured (and mocked) on shows like The Simpsons and Saturday Night Live.
  - Pxtl 12y ago
    Yes, but my point is that nobody has actually seen one IRL. If most folks saw one on the street today they'd have to rack their brains to try and recall some tech story from 2 years ago.
    - krick 12y ago
      You don't really have to know much about what it is and is it Google Glass or Microsoft Eyepatch or Toyota Lens or whatever. If you are not just out of the forest you'll see that it's some very rare in your society tech-thing strapped to your face, that it's probably expensive and it's not what "normal guys" do, which already can make one hostile. It's pretty obvious and you don't need to study psychology to understand that. But it's incorrect to assume that this thing being "weird" is the only reason to make people hostile. I myself would be hostile to someone wearing that stuff, not because I'm some swain who never saw a computer, but exactly because I know what it is, I know which company made it and what that company does, I know about their business model and remember all these stories about them grabbing WiFi traffic from years ago and all the other things that make them "evil" in some way. And I see you as this company's drone for filming and recording audio around you all over the world, and not some weirdo who spends $1.5K on useless things. The fact that it's you who pays $1500 to be the drone isn't the reason for someone like me to be hostile, it's just funny.

by csallen 12y ago

smacktoward 12y ago

> it seems that when you merely possess technology, people tend to acknowledge and refer to it distinctly. However, when you wear technology, people increasingly conflate you and your character with the technology itself. This is because things you choose to wear are fashion choices, and the whole reason people choose one fashion over another is to make a statement about who they are. In this respect, Glass is no different than regular glasses; all regular glasses serve the same functional purpose of correcting impaired vision, but a pair of (say) Warby Parkers also make a particular statement about the personality of the person wearing them. The chasm Glass has fallen into is that the fashion meaning of a particular thing is decided collectively by the culture, not by the people who created it. And the culture has collectively decided that the fashion statement Glass makes is "I am a turbo nerd."

bri3d 12y ago
I think the friction is because the statement is much worse than "I am a turbo nerd." Glass (rightfully or not) has come to stand for both useless trinkets for the tech-wealthy and pervasive surveillance of the masses by a large corporation, so wearing it really comes off as saying "I have more money than you and I'm going to use it to let Google record videos of you too!" A camera-less Google Glass at a lower pricepoint would simply say "I am a turbo nerd" and would probably be much more acceptable.
- cheeko1234 12y ago
  A camera-less Google Glass is an amazing idea! The question is what features will be lost and what other sensors are needed?
  - natch 12y ago
    Unfortunately Google has already tainted the entire category of eye wearables. It will be very hard to establish acceptance because even if you use a device without a camera, people will think it does have a camera.
- geofft 12y ago
  I tried taping over the camera in my Glass, because I don't use that feature at all, and I don't want anyone to think I'm using it. It turns out that there's also an ambient light sensor in there that adjusts the brightness, so you can't see anything if you do that. So my Glass goes unused, because I don't feel comfortable wearing it anywhere.
  - natch 12y ago
    >I don't want anyone to think I'm using it. Moot now if you're not using it, but you know, even if your tape was as big as a golf ball, as a passerby I'm not going to know or think that your camera is covered, because I avoid looking anywhere near the things. And for all I know it could be a hardware hacked version with the camera hole elsewhere. So your goal was not being achieved. And it still might be recording audio. If you're wearing it, I have to take your word for it. If you're not, I don't.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

daeken 12y ago

My experience is similar to yours; I got mine about a year ago and for the first 3-4 months I used them heavily, but I can't recall the last time I really used them. However, not being in SF, my experience with people's reactions has been very, very different. In CT and NYC, I had 100% positive responses; no exceptions. Everyone was interested and asked questions, and I'd often offer to let them try it out. In SF (and to an extent, Portland), I had many negative responses to it. Quite odd for being much more tech-centric places.

0xffff2 12y ago
I'm not surprised by that at all. I would theorize that there is a strong correlation between tech consciousness and privacy consciousness, and that where the presence of both is high, the privacy conscious aspect dominates.
arebop 12y ago
I disagree with the characterization of SF as forward-thinking. There are many people with big ideas and willing to undertake risky endeavors, but there are also many people who vehemently resent "techies." I think most SF citizens regard "techies" as mildly obnoxious. Overall, I find that SF is relatively tolerant of diversity, /except/ when it comes to people working in STEM disciplines, and so wearing Glass in SF is really asking for trouble.
- mjn 12y ago
  I think that's mostly a socioeconomic issue in SF, very similar to how many New Yorkers resent bankers.

shostack 12y ago

> By contrast, the incremental improvements that Glass makes over a smartphone aren't worth the social/physical costs of wearing something on your face. Yet... I personally think they launched without a killer app. Comparing against headphones, listening to music in a portable and private manner was novel and a "killer app." To your point, today's mobile devices cover off on a wide range of capabilities, and my sense is that Glass hasn't provided an app that was "killer" enough to overcome the stigma and eventually erode it. Didn't help that a large % of the fashion-conscious out there felt it was ugly as sin. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes Apple to wearables sexy and acceptable. They are smart to start with a watch since the form factor is understood and not dramatically different.

njharman 12y ago
> I personally think they launched without a killer app. The killer app, the one that will override peoples fears (by praying on them) is 24/7 recording to the cloud. The first mugging/assault that is foiled (or perpetrators caught) cause their faces and actions were streamed realtime to not personal storage will get every paranoid parent and frightened wealthy person wanting one.
- linker3000 12y ago
  The next mugging where the perp's first move (way after donning a balaclava) is to disable the glasses with a baseball bat to the head, or by using a can of spray paint, leaving the victim sprawled on the ground with a gloss-painted face, will also make the news.
  - alexbecker 12y ago
    The whole point is that that would be ineffective with immediate cloud backup. Presumably you've already seen them by the time they destroy the glasses.
    - klibertp 12y ago
      I had to google "balaclava", but I think even immediate cloud backup would be ineffective against masked person and/or surprise attack from behind. It would be really good for dealing with police officers who go around destroying phones and other similar situations, so it wouldn't be completely useless either.

gdulli 12y ago

> By contrast, the incremental improvements that Glass makes over a smartphone aren't worth the social/physical costs of wearing something on your face. Am I crazy for finding the smartphone form ideal? I want something I can fit in my pocket easily, take it out quickly and casually as many times as needed, but mostly it should be put away. Are these $1500 glasses fragile? Can they be put in a pocket or will they break without a case? How big is the case? Likely much larger than a smartphone. I always have to be responsible for those glasses when I'm not wearing them one way or another. I'm not interested in increasing the amount of time I spend online, just the convenience. Glasses won't solve that. I won't even be willing to use contacts when they're available in that form.

WiseWeasel 12y ago
I'd like my communication device to crawl out of my pocket, stand up on my shoulder, and talk into my ear when someone calls.
- grayclhn 12y ago
  So, um, you're still wearing your bluetooth earpiece as an accessory, then? Bold choice.

Pxtl 12y ago

I'm betting folks outside of SF wouldn't even know what it is. I think they missed the market a bit - don't target the tech-fashion group with a device like that. Wait until you can get something actually slick. Something fashionable with some nice transition lenses for that market. The spartan, minimalist headband-with-a-computer on it device? Market that thing at sporty types. Runners, hikers, cyclists. A lightweight hybrid of a GoPro and a smartwatch that's hands-free? People could look past battery, price, and fashion issues for that, and lots of extreme-sports-types already do wearable cameras.

snowwrestler 12y ago
People definitely know what Google Glass is, nationally. It was covered extensively by national news media, and featured (and mocked) on shows like The Simpsons and Saturday Night Live.
- Pxtl 12y ago
  Yes, but my point is that nobody has actually seen one IRL. If most folks saw one on the street today they'd have to rack their brains to try and recall some tech story from 2 years ago.
  - krick 12y ago
    You don't really have to know much about what it is and is it Google Glass or Microsoft Eyepatch or Toyota Lens or whatever. If you are not just out of the forest you'll see that it's some very rare in your society tech-thing strapped to your face, that it's probably expensive and it's not what "normal guys" do, which already can make one hostile. It's pretty obvious and you don't need to study psychology to understand that. But it's incorrect to assume that this thing being "weird" is the only reason to make people hostile. I myself would be hostile to someone wearing that stuff, not because I'm some swain who never saw a computer, but exactly because I know what it is, I know which company made it and what that company does, I know about their business model and remember all these stories about them grabbing WiFi traffic from years ago and all the other things that make them "evil" in some way. And I see you as this company's drone for filming and recording audio around you all over the world, and not some weirdo who spends $1.5K on useless things. The fact that it's you who pays $1500 to be the drone isn't the reason for someone like me to be hostile, it's just funny.