Scoble says Google Glass is doomed(plus.google.com) |
Scoble says Google Glass is doomed(plus.google.com) |
...that is to say, ridiculed by the general public, but finding a bit of a niche in certain industries. The police, postal carriers, etc. @cstross did a pretty good job of convincing me that some form of augmented reality would be very useful for the police. There is a real-life push right now to get police wearing cameras too, I think this sort of device could compliment that trend.
"IT" can go up to two hundred miles per hour, gets three hundred miles to the gallon, and is an all-around better mode of travel. The only problem is that "IT" is controlled by a quite painful and uncomfortable method; using four "flexi-grip handles" that somewhat resemble erect penises; two held in the hands, one in the mouth, and a fourth handle which is inserted into the anus. It also transpires that the vehicle can be operated with buttons too, making the phallus-like controls an unnecessary discomfort. Garrison invites many important investors such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Yasmine Bleeth to see how "IT" works. Despite this unorthodox control mechanism (which is uncomfortable to the citizens of South Park), "IT" is still considered better than the airlines and Garrison is a smashing success.
People who prioritize utility over fashion are prime candidates though. Even nerds who claim to be all about utility are typically more fashion conscious than they want to admit, but when you are on the job being all about utility stops being a fashion faux pas. Utility belts are perfectly acceptable for people to wear when they are working, but you never see them otherwise (well, maybe the odd cellphone belt-clip..). I think that people who wear utility belts for work are a great target audience for this sort of thing.
I think they should focus on industrial use. That has the potential to be a stable market for them that they can use for widespread testing of hardware and applications. Use police to keep the ball rolling until they figure out a way to get the general public on board.
Edit: as long as it has vim bindings. :)
There is a lot of stuff you could do with this sort of technology. If proper HUD glasses ever become more practical, you could of course do a lot more (and you would already have officers comfortable with the general concept).
Of course, from a user sort of a well cool gadget POV, I do think its rather cool and would happily have a go on one my self.
So, while I see the merits, I think there will be a huge social problem, which may well negate mass take up. As another poster said, what may well happen is that they will be used in lots of specific situations, rather than be a general use thing. I know I'd probably like using it for specific things, or as a toy or gadget, but out and about? No, Im too pretty..... ;)
That being said, I did actually learn something from that wall of text: The fact that Glass needs to be specifically fitted to the wearer is definitely problematic. I'm curious how G will work around that from a logistical PoV.
With ~5 mil readers I suspect he is indeed taking the reader's potential reaction into account and adjusting his writing accordingly.
>why blame him for your own emotional response to reading it
I was commenting on the impression that it create rather than blaming anyone for anything.
I agree that cost is important. $500 is probably way too high, considering what $500 buys in fun gadgets.
They should also have a visible light to indicate when the camera is active.
Why? Scoble's been very active on G+ since it was made public. Too active, if you've got him in your Circles. I eventually shunted him to a "Voluble" circle I'd check periodically, relying more on his better posts to appear when forwarded to my Stream. When he's good, he's really, really good, but typically also critical, mostly he's just average but with the hyperbole and volume: overwhelming.
Scoble's also been one of the more astute critics of a number of Google's offerings. Google has the virtue of operating at Google Scale. Scoble does social networking at Scoble Scale. Issues which might not faze most users (or which might get brushed off when the technorati gripe about the, yr. humble author raises his hand) tend to get noticed by Scoble. He's griped about noise and distraction on G+ since the beginning. Various notifications, calendar / events, and moderation issues have been championed by him.
I've left G+ (for numerous reasons, mostly concerning privacy: http://redd.it/1u356d), but Scoble's been a reasonable exemplar of the platform and both its strengths and weaknesses.
Edit: More goodness sensing makes words.
:-D
Then, he is wrong often. http://odonnellweb.com/pelican/posts/2013/Apr/google-glass-i...
"By 2020 I'm quite convinced this will be a big deal and there will be lots of competitors by then. So, if you make it about 2020, then it isn't doomed. If it's about beating the Apple iWatch in 2014? Yes, totally doomed."
The Yes Men hit upon what Google Glass is really all about -- the Managerial Leisure Suit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj-gisszHM0 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_dg6V8pQGo
Yes, I find him really annoying taken unfiltered. But when he's good, he's really good.
Sadly, writing on social media reveals his greatest weakness. He really needs to write for someone who tosses out about 90% of what he generates.
However, post-Snowden I don't see myself using either.
2. Will probably be very popular as a cyclist camera. Cyclist who just want a decent 720p camera to record cycling activity (evidence against dangerous drivers), but don't want to attach a dorky camera to their head (i.e. GoPro), will like the Google Glass -- assuming it can fix onto cycling glasses. Also, having GPS/Strava/heart-rate/cadence all on your Google Glass will be awesome for cyclist. (and runners)
Strava already has a Glass integration they showed off at the last Glass dev demo.
The Recon(?) cycling augmented glasses look pretty good too.
That said I do see helmets with HD cameras and wireless controls in the future. Trademark™ and all that.
It's curious that people don't mind hearing aids or wouldn't mind "Google Ear" if there were such a thing. They don't mind recording devices on cell phones in pockets. There's something about the modifying the eyes that upsets people. I hate it when people wear weird contact lenses, such as the all black lenses. I want to see your eyes unimpeded if I'm going to talk comfortably to you. I want to see who you are and how you are reacting to me. Take you Google Glass off, set it on the table and point it at me. I don't care. Just don't wear it when you're talking to me.
From 97% of news articles / reviews google glass is a voice activated camera. While this is mildly interesting it's the only use anyone has for the device. Who cares about this feature? It's not especially new, exciting or a good user experience.
If google could distill google glass into a single statement like "1000 songs in your pocket" we might understand it.
What is the equivalent statement for google glass?
11. You might as well carry a huge banner that says "I'm a giant nerd." You know how normal people start fidgeting and looking around for someone else to talk to the moment you mention that you work with computers? If you're wearing Google Glass, you won't even get to the hello.
Bear in mind that this isn't in the valley, but in a fairly conservative part of CT. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of negative experiences while wearing Glass have far more to do with the wearer than the hardware.
Got that reaction with big clunky smartphones 15yrs ago. Now every Joe in the vicinity keeps earnestly stroking their Facebook app.
Screw it :-D
6. The really scary thing? The eye sensor. There's a reason why +Larry Page didn't answer my question at last year's Google IO: that thing can probably tell whether you are drunk or sober (think about THAT tonight). It also can probably tell you when you are checking out someone you shouldn't be (wait until the wife gets an alert about THAT). Of course Google will use it to tell what brands you are checking out at the grocery store (coupon alert) or when you are shopping in a shopping mall.
As for Google Ogle-detection™... I think the solution there is probably relationship counselling. That's basically an extension of the "my smartphone's GPS will allow my wife to track my every movement" problem. Trust and respect will remain as important as ever in relationships in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_labor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superficial_charm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_management
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_branding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_capital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingratiation
I wonder if a classic-style cameraless HUD could alleviate some of the social issues while still retaining enough of the functionality. I mean it'd still take a certain kind of person to wear it, but people who wouldn't wear it who are actively angry at / frightened of Google Glass, rather than merely indifferent to it, seem to be so mostly because of the possibility that the person wearing it could be recording them at any time, without outwardly visible signs (while recording someone by holding up your smartphone is typically pretty obvious). The HUD itself doesn't seem to particularly anger people.
On the other hand, if some devices come with cameras and others don't, people with the no-recording versions might still suffer the same stigma, if the average person can't tell at a glance which is which.
Truthfully, my willpower isn't that great. I might be one of them if I had Google Glass.
It was sort of an uncanny-valley thing where we were having a face-to-face conversation, but I was not quite sure which of the normal face-to-face cues applied. I don't at all mind different kinds of conversations, but to me an IM or IRC chat feel much more comfortable, because you just switch to a completely different interaction mode. Not necessarily less nuanced if it's people who are "fluent" at chat, but different, so it doesn't feel uncanny in the same way. Might be something I'd get used to with more experience, though.
I also don't think it's a bad thing, mind you. We're heading into an age of mass surveillance whether we like it or not. If we're going there we may as well go there with defensive, personally controllable (even if not secure), devices to go with it. Who watches the watchers and all that.
