Wow. Thanks! I wear glasses to and it's also my concern. But my problem now, my lens are too thick (my grade is high) to be held up by a half frame. I always need a full framed glass. And I think, that one in the picture is just half framed.
I hope I meet someone wearing this. I'll get really close then say "OK Glass, Google porn". Or better yet, "OK Glass, take a picture and send it to everyone"
It'll work just fine with "famous" people. All it takes is enough digital audio. I think newsreader/journalist types will have the worst of it, and unfortunately hype has to flow past them, so there are going to be PR issues.
I could imagine entire soundboards being created to spoof people into viewing internet shock sites, etc.
For example, lets pick on Leo Laporte, because I like him and he's famous in the tech journalism community. He must have thousands of hours, tens of thousands of hours, of digital audio free for use on the net. So all you need is a simple audio editor and an audio player to play the spliced commandline and you can spoof him. So at any time in his long recorded career has Leo ever said the words "girls" and "one" and "two" and "image" and "cup" and "google" and "search"? Well, I think he could be shock site'd pretty well with this technique. Not just shock sites, but rickrolls would be funny too.
If they're smart, they'll pick up the bone vibrations from the wearer. You know how your voice sounds different when you hear it back from a recording? They should be able to detect when the wearer is saying something in the same way you hear yourself when talking.
You must be proud of yourself for coming up with such an original joke. You know. One that hasn't been floating around since the first day Glass was even leaked.
Regulatory hurdles schmurdles. If we could get the iPad and iPhone years before they were officially available here, we'll find a way to get Glass too :P
"Explorers will each need to pre-order a Glass Explorer Edition for $1500 plus tax and attend a special pick-up experience, in person, in New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles." Interesting. Now we gladly apply for the chance to pay a company $1500 plus tax for a product.
It's not a product yet. It's a development device and it has a lot of interest. Having to pay $1500 for it will mean that the people who apply will be serious about building things for it.
It's like applying and paying for a development kit to a games console, etc.
Fair enough. Nevertheless, a company like Google could certainly afford to be gracious with developers and let them contribute to the future product's success without making them pay a hefty amount.
There still has to be a barrier to entry, or everybody and their mother would apply, and just leave the glasses sitting around on the table when they got bored with them. The price tag will weed out all but those serious about developing for glass and few peeps with disposable incomes.
I'm guessing that they made a finite number of this version because they'll be making a lot of improvements and new versions in the future. In order to make those improvements they need lots of data about how people use the product. People are more likely to use a product a lot if they paid $1500 for it than if they got it for free.
I've always hoped that the Hitchhikers (Zaphod Beeblebrox) method for initiating an interaction with computers (saying "OK [computer]") would catch on.
Check out the "what it does" page towards the bottom under the headline "evolutionary design" it shows a picture of a lens mounted on a pair I assume you could get a prescription lens if you wore glasses.
It looks like its designed to work with any type of lens, some of the pics at http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/ show it without any lenses at all. Its kind of like a projector that beams onto whatever lens is used, I think.
They need people with cash, otherwise their users won't be able to afford all the horses, planes and balloons necessary to enjoy the full Google Glass experience.
Is the same thing as people trying to buy a Ferrari. Demand vastly exceeds supply so they will have no problem finding people that will think nothing of spending that amount of money. And frankly speaking $1,500 is not a lot of money. If you are poor or stingy I guess it is but at this point in time they are not targeting cheapskates.
Are you implying that they should have priced it higher? I mean, if we're going to go by "what we paid to produce it" rather than "what people previously paid for it", it should probably start at $10k.
I'm not sure what conversation you're having with yourself. I'm just pointing out that the time-honored capitalist response to demand outstripping supply is raising prices rather than having contests.
Broke and programming everyday on a project I'm working on. And with no income for quite some time. I'm down to two sets of pants and some of my clothes have holes. My sneakers certainly have plenty of holes. My office is the local library. Life is great!
Couple that with the cost of getting yourself to one of the required meeting locations...which can easily run somebody as much as the cost of the device. Some of us do live in flyover country. Though that's probably our fault and not Google's ;-).
Oh man, I wish I was in the US, I've been raving about glass for a while. I really think it opens up new doors.
One way is combing augmented reality and social networking with Glass. There are a number of cool things that come of this.
One is being able to look at someone also using the Glass app and being presented with their profile, plus options to send messages or view more information. It may even be possible even if they don't have Glass using a combo of geolocation and facial recognition. The most exciting bit is sending a message between two glass users because it'd be pretty much like telepathy.
When the 'internet of thing' comes about, it may even be posdible to control all your various devices without lifting a finger. I could look at my kettle from across the room and flick it on!
There are tonnes of possibilities and I think, especially when it's on a contact lens, it will make what's currently considered magical (telepathy, psychokinesis, etc) a reality, just like the plane removed the magic from human flight.
I think wearable computing opens up many exciting doors and the two thoughts above only scratch the surface of the possibilities I imagine.
In fact, I feel so strongly about ot I'd emigrate to the US just to get my hands on this awesome tech. I need to get onto it ASAP.
Finally, my dream of wearing masks in public has a chance of becoming more acceptable!
As stuff like Google Glass becomes more common, I could see there being a reactionary movement of people who want to stay anonymous. The easy solution is to wear masks like in Venice.
You're not actually anonymous in crowds, because everyone can see your face. It's just that social conventions lead us to not bother one another. They work because we're not anonymous...if I bother you, you can immediately bother me to the same degree.
The ickiness with Google Glass is the asymmetry of information--one person basically stalking another, aided by a networked computer.
At least you'd know they were doing it by the ridiculous electronic glasses they're wearing.
You're missing the fact that the only way to interface with it is by voice. If you want to send a message to another person, you need to speak it out loud. If that person is nearby, it's not really telepathy, it's just talking.
Google glass isn't going to get a bunch of apps or options, because nobody is going to go around saying things like 'ok glass scroll left', 'ok glass install/open instagram', 'ok glass show me his profile'.
Yes, the interface needs to be improved/replaced before what I'm talking about is practical, even if it's so you can whisper rather than speak at normal volume. Personally, I do not think using voice as an interface is the correct way forward with these devices at all.
I haven't many ideas for this, my best guess would be using the eye to control it but then that has many challenges - how would we click?
Why do your find the idea of turning on your kettle from across the room by looking at it, exciting? It is because it makes you feel like you've gained a new, awesome, magical power? But all you did was turn a kettle on. I wouldn't exactly consider that a "new door".
This device has zero appeal to me. Actually, probably less than zero.
If Google could develop a technology that would clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch -- _that_ would impress me. I wouldn't even mind so much that it was covered in targeted ads.
> Why do your find the idea of turning on your kettle from across the room by looking at it, exciting?
That use case is exciting because it'd be a phenomenally useful device for the elderly or bedridden. Being able to see who is at the door without having to get up and look through the peephole, then letting them in if you know them; answering the phone without getting up; generally just operating your house's devices without undue movement really would be quite something.
That's true, there are good use cases for it, and similar technologies, in this domain. If the commenter to whom I was replying prefaced their excitement by explaining they were elderly or bedridden, I likely wouldn't have asked that (not-entirely-rhetorical) question -- it would have seemed reasonable to me. From the context I got the impression (possibly mistaken) that they were able-bodied, though.
That's fair enough. Let me put it another way: the thought of turning my kettle on by looking at it isn't that exciting to me. The extended idea of someone turning a kettle or other connected device on, is.
Every time I see Google Glass I think "Oh, cool" and then I realize that what I want/need in everyday life is de-augmented reality (i.e. just vanilla reality). I've already got devices buzzing etc. to get my attention for "important thing".
The argument for things like Glass is that they will make the merging of reality and technology seamless which could have great advantages. I fear, however, that it just means I'll have a thing right in front of my face asking for my attention.
The $1B idea with Google Glass is not the technology of putting it in front of your eyes etc., it's figuring out the software that filters down what's shown to the stuff you actually want/need. I don't think we've done that successfully in other domains yet.
I see these things as a natural progression. The Internet is so important that we are becoming connected tighter with each revolultion.
When I first started using the Internet, it was using an unreliable 56k on a large desktop. I had to visit one spot in my house to connect.
After this, I got my first laptop. This was great because now I can connect any where in my house. By that time, I had broadband do always on, faster and way more reliable.
Fast forward again and I got my first smart phone. Now I can connect pretty much anywhere (given a decent signal) just by pulling my phone out of my pocket.
Google Glass means I won't have to pull it out of my pocket anymore. Now my life will be constantly enhanced at every moment by great hackers, just like it has been enhanced in increasing amounts since I first touched the Internet.
No, I cannot say my life has been enhanced by those types of applications.
I'm talking stuff we take for granted like email, the web, word processing. These things have enhanced my life. The web alone opens a whole library of information and I am actually thankful because without it I'd know only a fraction of what I currently know.
Similar revolutions will happen and I fully believe something like Google Glass will be the medium.
Just as a thought, look at everything you use computers for now and think what it'd be like if they wasn't there? Even the most basic tasks should be considered.
While I can barely tolerate ads and always go for the ad-free version of an app when possible, I would mandate precisely zero ads for such a device to register as worthwhile on my radar.
Google Glass means I won't have to pull it out of my pocket anymore. Now my life will be constantly enhanced at every moment by great hackers, just like it has been enhanced in increasing amounts since I first touched the Internet.
Try this for enhancement: shut everything off and talk to a human being, be it the local bagel shop owner or a homeless person. If I had to bet your life isn't being enhanced, it's being drained away, app by app. How many coffee cup pics must one post online? It gets boring after a while, and, imo, it's a sign of depression and a feeling of inferiority.
I've lived my entire sentient life with a cable or faster Internet connection. I spend virtually all of my time that is not spent going out with friends, eating lunch with colleagues, or having alone time with my partner on my laptop, Xbox, or Nexus S. I am, seemingly, what you fear.
I cannot think of a single reason why it would be more productive for me to talk to a homeless person instead of doing any of the things I do on computing devices on a daily basis. I don't think you can name any, beyond straw men like "you're wasting your time looking at pictures of coffee cups on the Internet." Because my life is constantly mediated by technology, I can tell you with very good precision that of the 8,760 hours in 2011, I only wasted 939 of them (and most of that was playing video games over the summer -- it's arguable that I'm not wasting time by experiencing the story of Mass Effect the same way I wouldn't be wasting my time experiencing the story of The Hunger Games, but books are more high status, so I'll give myself incentive to prefer them over video games).
If uploading pictures of coffee cups to the Internet is what you do with most of your time on computers, I feel genuinely sorry for you, and I hope that you can find a better hobby. I don't think that talking to random people you run into during your day is that hobby, though. Have you tried this app ShuffleMyLife? It might give you better things to do outdoors than try to start conversations with shopkeepers.
The intuitive response to this is an angry rant about the definition of normality and your mandate to define it. Despite your derogatory, I empathise with your sentiment. I don't believe that recording every aspect of your life, or being integrated with the Internet will make me a happier person.
What I am really looking forwards to, is being able to lean back and read or watch video's without having to hold anything, or sit in a big room designed for the purpose.
Is the sense of superiority you feel towards tedks worth more than that?
If you aren't dead by 30, you're grossly abnormal in comparison to most humans throughout history.
The "abnormal" aspects of modernity are the most valuable parts of it. If you feel dehumanized by technology, maybe you need to reconsider what humanity means to you, and whether it's a worthy goal.
Maybe for you, but the trend is to become increasingly more connected. People can still choose not to use their phone 16 hours a day, and yet they do it anyway.
So I take it you never go outside? CCTV is already omnipresent. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that there are larger surveillance battles to be fought.
Since you live in the UK[1], I would guess CCTV would be everywhere. However, not every country is covered with CCTV (yet). That will probably change in the future though.
There are no CCTVs at workplace, at the parties and in the subway carriages. And no CCTVs are sharing out to the public. And, no, they are not "omnipresent".
Most CCTV cameras are private and not monitored. You install them and have them record on a loop - old data is automatically erased to make room for new data. When something bad happens (an accident, a robbery, etc) recording is stopped and the existing data is handed over to relevant parties.
This is far less problematic than an omnipresent, monitored, shared, catalogued and indexed in perpetuity, video system.
It does seem to rely heavily on picking at low hanging fruit. Flight times are important if you are in an airport, but its hardly life changing. My hunch is that it will be made by a hundred thousand small niche uses rather than a single billion dollar idea. This could be completely transcendent, and maybe needs to be to cut through the sensible aversion to this kind of tech.
I agree. I think, like cell phones, they will add more value in specific occupations, like package deliveries/warehouses, than everyday life. Once enough niche apps are developed and people start to feel the need to bring those apps into everyday life, then people will use them.
Flight times at the airport are a great example. I don't need to know the time of my flight, but I do need to know if it's been delayed or if the gate changes. I don't need to know those things I already know them in some other way.
But the flight example could work just as well or better with text messages from the airline. Your example is just a more annoying way of displaying notifications.
I was about to disagree with you, but I realized the real problem I wanted to address was the importance of context.
Text messages from an airline aren't great because by default they have the same "ding" as random jokes and "hey what's up." messages.
But Google Glasses could easily start having the exact same problem.
We need software to be trained with more intelligent context awareness — hey, Nathaniel put his phone on silent, but he is at the airport and here is a notification about a delayed flight, so the phone should vibrate a little bit to make sure he sees it.
We're getting better at this, as an industry: I walk into the Apple Store, it asks me to check into my genius appointment. If I walk into the movie theater, my phone pulls up my ticket as a QR code. But we still have a long way to go, and I think it's a far more interesting and important problem than whether the information shows up on my glasses or my phone.
Absolutely agree. Perhaps what is lacking is an effective feedback loop. When Google Display an incorrect search listing it is obvious based on user click patterns and can be factored into the algorithm. If Google don't tell you that your train is delayed there is no feedback loop.
I think the biggest application for Glasses is hands-free, head-up, relatively inconspicuous outdoor on-foot turn-by-turn navigation. That is the nearest thing you can get on-foot to the pleasure of in-car turn-by-turn navigation, with no need to walk around holding a mobile phone screen in front of your face. (The same kind of navigation indoors would be almost as wonderfully useful - especially for finding your way to the bloody airport departure gate! - but I assume that neither airport interiors nor v1 Google Glasses are ready to provide that today.) Combine that with the secondary application of convenient, hands-free, heads-up, relatively inconspicuous first-person photo and video recording and I think you have two pretty attractive and non-niche uses for Glasses to add to the long tail of more specialised applications. I'd say that the things most likely to hold back Glasses are price, privacy concerns (the wearer's and others'), possible social stigma, and fear of being mugged.
(You could do a decent poor-man's approximation to Glasses' turn-by-turn navigation if you had a Bluetooth handset that did head tracking and the right software for your smartphone: you'd have the audio navigation directions in your ear, plus a turn-by-turn map display on the phone screen to glance at when you wanted to. I haven't heard of any such system though.)
> I've already got devices buzzing etc. to get my attention for "important thing".
Isn't that the point though? Glass should require far less of your attention than these devices because it eliminates the need to reach into your pocket, pull it out (your device that is), swiping/unlocking, having to look down, needing a free hand or two, etc. Even something as simple as being able to scroll through my email/G+/twitter/IM hands free would be revolutionary for me and make them well worth wearing, as long as there's a gesture or gyroscope or subvocalization input mode of some sort so I don't need to give it constant voice/touch commands. It'd be well worth looking like an idiot nodding every few seconds or whatever.
Humans can walk and talk at the same time. We cannot walk and read at the same time.
We can drive and talk at the same time. We cannot drive and read at the same time.
To me the conclusion is obvious: pervasive wearable computing must talk to us, not show us things, to be useful. More specifically it must talk with us--understand what we want, when we want it, and give it to us.
I agree with you that the hardware is nothing compared to the complexity of the decision-making software. I think it is probably a multi-trillion-dollar opportunity, but it's so hard that no one company will solve it suddenly enough to corner the market.
Uh. What about superimposed maps on roads for example? What about product information just being there when you look at that in the super market (and whether it's cheaper somewhere on the internet). Or its nutrition information/health hazards etc. ! There are thousands of applications of pervasive wearable devices which 'shows us things'.
It's aimed at developers at the moment ... early access to this technology could give you a small piece of the giant cake that is about to come. Might be worth much more than $1,500.
I have no idea of the rendering power available in these things, but a kick-ass alternate reality game with things only glass-wearers can see would be a good start.
I wonder, when this becomes mainstream, what is going to start happening on the roads? It is already quite dangerous with some drivers texting/talking on their phones while driving. So now they will have yet another thing to look at (other than the road they're on)...
Not saying glass is a bad thing, I think it's really great. Just wonder how (or if) this is going to affect the road safety.
I think it could either enhance or diminish road safety. It all comes down to the person using the technology, though.
The sort of person who would use something like Glass to use GPS or a HUD (speedo, tach, clock?) without taking their eyes off of the road will likely be a more safe driver. HUDs have been credited with enhancing aviator safety; this could bring such innovations to the road.
The sort of person who looks for distractions anyway will now be distracted by Glass. I'm not sure if this will constitute new distractions or a new way to consume old ones, though.
Generally the more crooked the police department, the more violently they react to being filmed in action. Where I live they're fairly lawful so they kinda laugh and/or cooperate (pose for the camera, would your kids like some free baseball cards, etc). On the other hand, there are less civilized places on the coasts where you'll get pretty well beaten and jailed and your camera destroyed if you film corrupt cops, even if by some miracle they're not breaking the law at that moment.
Aside from corruption, this is going to be a pretty big issue for "drive by recording", both sides of every little drunk driving traffic stop and minor fender bender (oh and worse situations too) will probably want your recording data, even if its just a few seconds outta the corner of your eye. Even if its a complete waste of time, if its a high enough crime you'll have the criminal system going bonkers with you in the middle. I could see this affecting road safety in a self censorship manner. Oh no a crash, better not look that way or I'll get dragged into court as a witness for the zillionth time, whoops just crashed into the ambulance that pulled out while I was intentionally not watching the accident.
must be a US resident... well thanks google, dont you think that foreigners may also be interested, you are a multi-national organisation that operates on a global scale providing a service to users in almost every country, yet only americans can test your product. It almost guarantees that your test base will be predominantly white, male, educated and middle class anyway.
Multi-national organisation unable to sell Google Nexus 4/10 in Ireland, where they have their European HQ. Like if they cared about multinational, except to reroute taxes...
I'm not sure how I would stop myself from rage smashing my Glass the first time an ad popped up at an inappropriate/dangerous time. Glass could be really cool, and it could be really, really stupid too.
There will be apps. Will there be free/ad supported apps? I hope not.
200 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 249 ms ] threadhttp://www.roadtovr.com/2012/12/30/google-glass-spotted-in-t...
I could imagine entire soundboards being created to spoof people into viewing internet shock sites, etc.
For example, lets pick on Leo Laporte, because I like him and he's famous in the tech journalism community. He must have thousands of hours, tens of thousands of hours, of digital audio free for use on the net. So all you need is a simple audio editor and an audio player to play the spliced commandline and you can spoof him. So at any time in his long recorded career has Leo ever said the words "girls" and "one" and "two" and "image" and "cup" and "google" and "search"? Well, I think he could be shock site'd pretty well with this technique. Not just shock sites, but rickrolls would be funny too.
This takes some planning ahead, but not much.
I am so excited for this I hope they get it fitted for people with bad eyesight.
Have so many ideas about augmented reality that it truly feels like a set back to learn its US only.
always kills it for me :(
That said, I wonder how difficult it would be to modify Glass so it mounts on my regular glasses.
Either way, I applied. I won't be picked, but at least I tried :)
There's regulatory hurdles for them to cover.
It's like applying and paying for a development kit to a games console, etc.
You can flip them at least 10 times the price day one for sure. A lot more if you wait.
People love making collections of expensives things.
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/
Here is sunglasses on Brin from opposite profile: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvbW54...
"Explorers will each need to pre-order a Glass Explorer Edition for $1500 plus tax and attend a special pick-up experience, in person"
I think the normal idea under these circumstances is to increase the price until the demand meets the supply.
You don't become a billionaire by wasting your money.
1) A hangout that confused everyone involved because nobody was leading it
2) An API training event that had extremely limited places
My block of etched glass appears to stand for very little.
One way is combing augmented reality and social networking with Glass. There are a number of cool things that come of this.
One is being able to look at someone also using the Glass app and being presented with their profile, plus options to send messages or view more information. It may even be possible even if they don't have Glass using a combo of geolocation and facial recognition. The most exciting bit is sending a message between two glass users because it'd be pretty much like telepathy.
When the 'internet of thing' comes about, it may even be posdible to control all your various devices without lifting a finger. I could look at my kettle from across the room and flick it on!
There are tonnes of possibilities and I think, especially when it's on a contact lens, it will make what's currently considered magical (telepathy, psychokinesis, etc) a reality, just like the plane removed the magic from human flight.
I think wearable computing opens up many exciting doors and the two thoughts above only scratch the surface of the possibilities I imagine.
In fact, I feel so strongly about ot I'd emigrate to the US just to get my hands on this awesome tech. I need to get onto it ASAP.
As stuff like Google Glass becomes more common, I could see there being a reactionary movement of people who want to stay anonymous. The easy solution is to wear masks like in Venice.
The ickiness with Google Glass is the asymmetry of information--one person basically stalking another, aided by a networked computer.
At least you'd know they were doing it by the ridiculous electronic glasses they're wearing.
There's another way to get to Australia other than plane too: walk and swim.
Google glass isn't going to get a bunch of apps or options, because nobody is going to go around saying things like 'ok glass scroll left', 'ok glass install/open instagram', 'ok glass show me his profile'.
I haven't many ideas for this, my best guess would be using the eye to control it but then that has many challenges - how would we click?
This device has zero appeal to me. Actually, probably less than zero.
If Google could develop a technology that would clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch -- _that_ would impress me. I wouldn't even mind so much that it was covered in targeted ads.
EDIT: rephrased first sentence for clarity
That use case is exciting because it'd be a phenomenally useful device for the elderly or bedridden. Being able to see who is at the door without having to get up and look through the peephole, then letting them in if you know them; answering the phone without getting up; generally just operating your house's devices without undue movement really would be quite something.
The argument for things like Glass is that they will make the merging of reality and technology seamless which could have great advantages. I fear, however, that it just means I'll have a thing right in front of my face asking for my attention.
The $1B idea with Google Glass is not the technology of putting it in front of your eyes etc., it's figuring out the software that filters down what's shown to the stuff you actually want/need. I don't think we've done that successfully in other domains yet.
When I first started using the Internet, it was using an unreliable 56k on a large desktop. I had to visit one spot in my house to connect.
After this, I got my first laptop. This was great because now I can connect any where in my house. By that time, I had broadband do always on, faster and way more reliable.
Fast forward again and I got my first smart phone. Now I can connect pretty much anywhere (given a decent signal) just by pulling my phone out of my pocket.
Google Glass means I won't have to pull it out of my pocket anymore. Now my life will be constantly enhanced at every moment by great hackers, just like it has been enhanced in increasing amounts since I first touched the Internet.
I'm talking stuff we take for granted like email, the web, word processing. These things have enhanced my life. The web alone opens a whole library of information and I am actually thankful because without it I'd know only a fraction of what I currently know.
Similar revolutions will happen and I fully believe something like Google Glass will be the medium.
Just as a thought, look at everything you use computers for now and think what it'd be like if they wasn't there? Even the most basic tasks should be considered.
Just from personal experience the more capable something is of interrupting me the more selective I am with privileges.
Try this for enhancement: shut everything off and talk to a human being, be it the local bagel shop owner or a homeless person. If I had to bet your life isn't being enhanced, it's being drained away, app by app. How many coffee cup pics must one post online? It gets boring after a while, and, imo, it's a sign of depression and a feeling of inferiority.
I cannot think of a single reason why it would be more productive for me to talk to a homeless person instead of doing any of the things I do on computing devices on a daily basis. I don't think you can name any, beyond straw men like "you're wasting your time looking at pictures of coffee cups on the Internet." Because my life is constantly mediated by technology, I can tell you with very good precision that of the 8,760 hours in 2011, I only wasted 939 of them (and most of that was playing video games over the summer -- it's arguable that I'm not wasting time by experiencing the story of Mass Effect the same way I wouldn't be wasting my time experiencing the story of The Hunger Games, but books are more high status, so I'll give myself incentive to prefer them over video games).
If uploading pictures of coffee cups to the Internet is what you do with most of your time on computers, I feel genuinely sorry for you, and I hope that you can find a better hobby. I don't think that talking to random people you run into during your day is that hobby, though. Have you tried this app ShuffleMyLife? It might give you better things to do outdoors than try to start conversations with shopkeepers.
That's pretty good for a robot but you can still improve.
As for me, I am a normal person, I don't need to track every freaking minute of my life or be "connected" to a million devices at any moment.
What I am really looking forwards to, is being able to lean back and read or watch video's without having to hold anything, or sit in a big room designed for the purpose.
Is the sense of superiority you feel towards tedks worth more than that?
The "abnormal" aspects of modernity are the most valuable parts of it. If you feel dehumanized by technology, maybe you need to reconsider what humanity means to you, and whether it's a worthy goal.
... do I really want fragments of my life to be recorded by total strangers and then shared with God knows who? I really don't.
It's a cool tech, but its social implications are far from being trivial and benign.
Is there any cool tech that doesn't have difficult social implications?
You only need to look at Google Play's lack of privacy to realise they see the user as a consuming resource.
At least Apple treats you more like the owner of your purchase, rather than something to drive ads with data.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television#Uses
There are no CCTVs at workplace, at the parties and in the subway carriages. And no CCTVs are sharing out to the public. And, no, they are not "omnipresent".
This is far less problematic than an omnipresent, monitored, shared, catalogued and indexed in perpetuity, video system.
I agree, far from trivial and benign.
Text messages from an airline aren't great because by default they have the same "ding" as random jokes and "hey what's up." messages.
But Google Glasses could easily start having the exact same problem.
We need software to be trained with more intelligent context awareness — hey, Nathaniel put his phone on silent, but he is at the airport and here is a notification about a delayed flight, so the phone should vibrate a little bit to make sure he sees it.
We're getting better at this, as an industry: I walk into the Apple Store, it asks me to check into my genius appointment. If I walk into the movie theater, my phone pulls up my ticket as a QR code. But we still have a long way to go, and I think it's a far more interesting and important problem than whether the information shows up on my glasses or my phone.
(You could do a decent poor-man's approximation to Glasses' turn-by-turn navigation if you had a Bluetooth handset that did head tracking and the right software for your smartphone: you'd have the audio navigation directions in your ear, plus a turn-by-turn map display on the phone screen to glance at when you wanted to. I haven't heard of any such system though.)
Google Glass augmenting reality was coined by the press.
That should give you an idea where Google is heading with this product.
Isn't that the point though? Glass should require far less of your attention than these devices because it eliminates the need to reach into your pocket, pull it out (your device that is), swiping/unlocking, having to look down, needing a free hand or two, etc. Even something as simple as being able to scroll through my email/G+/twitter/IM hands free would be revolutionary for me and make them well worth wearing, as long as there's a gesture or gyroscope or subvocalization input mode of some sort so I don't need to give it constant voice/touch commands. It'd be well worth looking like an idiot nodding every few seconds or whatever.
We can drive and talk at the same time. We cannot drive and read at the same time.
To me the conclusion is obvious: pervasive wearable computing must talk to us, not show us things, to be useful. More specifically it must talk with us--understand what we want, when we want it, and give it to us.
I agree with you that the hardware is nothing compared to the complexity of the decision-making software. I think it is probably a multi-trillion-dollar opportunity, but it's so hard that no one company will solve it suddenly enough to corner the market.
Can it overlay reality with giant scary monsters?
Not saying glass is a bad thing, I think it's really great. Just wonder how (or if) this is going to affect the road safety.
The sort of person who would use something like Glass to use GPS or a HUD (speedo, tach, clock?) without taking their eyes off of the road will likely be a more safe driver. HUDs have been credited with enhancing aviator safety; this could bring such innovations to the road.
The sort of person who looks for distractions anyway will now be distracted by Glass. I'm not sure if this will constitute new distractions or a new way to consume old ones, though.
Generally the more crooked the police department, the more violently they react to being filmed in action. Where I live they're fairly lawful so they kinda laugh and/or cooperate (pose for the camera, would your kids like some free baseball cards, etc). On the other hand, there are less civilized places on the coasts where you'll get pretty well beaten and jailed and your camera destroyed if you film corrupt cops, even if by some miracle they're not breaking the law at that moment.
Aside from corruption, this is going to be a pretty big issue for "drive by recording", both sides of every little drunk driving traffic stop and minor fender bender (oh and worse situations too) will probably want your recording data, even if its just a few seconds outta the corner of your eye. Even if its a complete waste of time, if its a high enough crime you'll have the criminal system going bonkers with you in the middle. I could see this affecting road safety in a self censorship manner. Oh no a crash, better not look that way or I'll get dragged into court as a witness for the zillionth time, whoops just crashed into the ambulance that pulled out while I was intentionally not watching the accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhikers_G...
(Edit: HN is stripping apostrophe in link - should be Hitchhiker's_Guide)
There will be apps. Will there be free/ad supported apps? I hope not.
Would probably do an auto 911 after an impact just as a way of making up )).