Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Portables

A Year With Google Glass 292

Posted by Soulskill
from the making-other-people-hate-you-on-sight dept.
Mat Honan, a writer for Wired, has posted an article detailing his takeaways from long-term use of Google Glass. He makes particular note of how the device's form factor is much more offensive to others than the actual technology contained within. For example, his wife wanted him to take pictures and shoot videos of their child's birth, but not with Glass: "It was the way Glass looked. It might let me remain in the moment, but my wife worried it would take her out of it, that its mere presence would be distracting because it’s so goddamn weird-looking." It can get unpleasant when strangers are involved: "People get angry at Glass. They get angry at you for wearing Glass. They talk about you openly. It inspires the most aggressive of passive aggression. ... Wearing Glass separates you. It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the “explorer” program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face." Honan found most of the default software to be handy, but the third-party software to be lacking. Glass also facilitated his unintentional switch from an iPhone to an Android phone. He ends the piece by warning of the inevitability of devices like Glass: "The future is on its way, and it is going to be on your face. We need to think about it and be ready for it in a way we weren’t with smartphones."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Year With Google Glass

Comments Filter:
  • True quote (Score:3, Interesting)

    by war4peace (1628283) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:10PM (#45831963)

    "The future is on its way, and it is going to be on your face. We need to think about it and be ready for it in a way we weren’t with smartphones."

    You can't fight time.

    • Re:True quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:25PM (#45832085)

      Maybe in 30 years, and even then it won't work the way google wants it to. Come on, this is this decade's "Segway" , a solution in search of a problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TWiTfan (2887093)

      The future is on its way, and it is going to be on your face.

      No, it's not going to be on *MY* face.

      • I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but every time I wear something on my head for more than an hour or so I get a headache. This goes for glasses, headphones, earbuds and all kinds of hats. So I will probably never use this kind of device (at least not a lot).

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      You can't fight time.

      You watch me. I wore glasses for half a century, paid a shitload of money for eye surgery, and there's no way in HELL I'm wearing any kind of glasses at all except maybe sunglasses when it's really bright or protective eyewear if necessary for some task.

      Cell phones? Of course, who wouldn't want a phone in their pocket? Quite handy. Smart phone? Of course, who wouldn't want the internet, email, a movie camera, a calculator, a phone, all in a pocket sized device?

      Google glass? I see no poi

  • "Class Divide"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:13PM (#45831989)

    No dumbass, we just don't like you aiming a camera and microphone at everywhere you look.

    • by O('_')O_Bush (1162487) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:25PM (#45832081)
      Yea, I was going to point out that his 'class divide' theory was nothing more than ego masturbation. In reality, people don't like having video cameras for Megacorp pointed at them at every interaction or passing by of a glasshole.
      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by MachDelta (704883)

        Interesting that you used the term "intersection" - look up next time you're at a traffic intersection, and count the number of cameras pointed down at traffic. In a lot of first world nations, chances are pretty good you'll see red light cameras or cctv or both. We all know that it's essentially impossible to go about public places without being caught on some kind of camera these days, so it's interesting to see that placing the camera in an ugly enclosure on someone's face crosses some kind of perceived

        • Wrong. Many CCTVs are related, and record data for a limited amount of time. There's a world of difference between a CCTV pointed at a carpark, and some glasshole slaking people around town. The most important difference is that an evil company named Google doesn't get to sift through the CCTV footage.

          You're way off about the reason people object. Disliking being recorded is not the main problem, it's what can be done with the images, and where they might end up and who might see them. Nobody gives a fuck

      • Tbh i think it's a combination of the perception that glass is primarily a recording device and the segway effect. It's sole function is conspicuous consumption, it does nothing better, faster, or different than any other device you have. If Glass had taken the eyetap as a base and gone for function instead of a blinged out recording device I'd bet a lot of people would be much less offended. Certainly it'd be out of the ordinary but there's a huge difference between something perceived as primarily designe

      • by phantomfive (622387) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @06:48PM (#45833199) Journal
        That basically describes everything in Wired magazine, and their target demographic.

        It's aimed at people who want to feel superior because the read Wired magazine, and being different strokes their ego.
    • Re:"Class Divide"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ebno-10db (1459097) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:28PM (#45832113)

      "Class Divide"?

      You're thinking of socio-economic class. This is a little different. It separates the class of people stupid and rude enough to walk around wearing Google Glass from the class of people who aren't.

    • Re:"Class Divide"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrLang21 (900992) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:29PM (#45832117)
      I wish I had mod points. This is the fundamental problem with Google Glass. One of the things that allows polite society to function is that, generally, if we make a slip of the tongue or do something stupid that we immediately regret it will be soon forgotten. Public life is only semi-public in that it is contained to a small area. However, as we are already starting to see, when everything is captured and recorded for prosterity, no one ever forgets and society is extrodinarily slow to forgive despite the fact that most everyone has been just as guilty at some point in time.
      • by buswolley (591500)
        The class divide reasoning was bogus and made me more than a little angry.
    • Re:"Class Divide"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by barlevg (2111272) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:44PM (#45832237)
      This isn't my issue with it either. My (irrational) hatred for Glass-wearers is along the same vein as my disdain for people who have their cell phones out at nice restaurants while their dining companions are with them (often with their own cell phones out). Glass is a statement that you can't bear to be disconnected from the internet for fifteen fucking minutes while you enjoy a nice meal, a walk outside, or a social event. But yeah, it's not jealously.
      • Re:"Class Divide"? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @05:03PM (#45832383) Homepage
        Personally, I think this goes for all electronics. The number of people who seem to think it's required to video record or take hundreds of photos (using camcorder, tablet, phone, digi-cam, or Google glass) every single thing that happens is kind of bothersome. My wife gets annoyed because I don't take enough photos of the kids when we're doing things, but personally I just try to enjoy the moment, and not let electronics get in the way. I'd rather just truly enjoy the moment then not really enjoy the moment because I was futzing with the camera and be able to see the moment later.
        • Re:"Class Divide"? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by RavenLrD20k (311488) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @05:32PM (#45832627) Journal

          I feel your pain. I'm an amateur photographer with all the high end equipment I need to capture beautiful shots (I prefer landscapes and still life). I absolutely abhor being told by my wife or parents that I'm going to be the designated photographer for an event, and, after losing yet another explosive argument where they won't accept "No" as an answer, I will often "forget" my camera equipment accidentally on purpose, and remind them that I said flatly...no. I'm going to an event to partake in it! Just by being behind a lens of any kind, be it smart phone, Digital Cam, Film Cam, Google Glass... I'm no longer a participant; I'm relegated to an objective observer, and my family doesn't understand why it pisses me off so much.

          • by JWSmythe (446288)

            I agree. Sometimes it's nice to have the invisibility of being behind the camera. People start ignoring you. But if you want to be *in* the moment, put the camera away.

            More times than not, I've been glad that I left the camera in the car or at home. I got to have fun instead.

            But at plenty of events, a expensive looking camera will open doors that you can't normally open. Saying "I'm shooting for the band", or just "Press" tells them you're allowed to do anything you want. Setting up a tripod with a vid

      • Re:"Class Divide"? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by PsychoSlashDot (207849) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @07:01PM (#45833267)

        This isn't my issue with it either. My (irrational) hatred for Glass-wearers is along the same vein as my disdain for people who have their cell phones out at nice restaurants while their dining companions are with them (often with their own cell phones out). Glass is a statement that you can't bear to be disconnected from the internet for fifteen fucking minutes while you enjoy a nice meal, a walk outside, or a social event. But yeah, it's not jealously.

        You're right. Remember when checking your watch while in a social setting was rude? Well, checking your smartphone is too. Google Glass is the worst of that rudeness because the person you're snubbing can't even vaguely see what you see. In fact, they can't be sure when you're snubbing them and when you're not. Any glances in the general direction of the display convey "you don't matter right now", right or wrong.

        Until this stuff injects data directly onto the retina without a visible chunk of hardware stuck to the face, it's going to be rude to wear.

    • Hey, no. That is cool. I'll just hide it in a button [ebay.com]. Do you feel more comfortable now that you can't tell if I am recording you?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:15PM (#45832001)

    "I'm going to wear these obnoxiously ugly glasses that happen to record everything I see. People object to my presence, but that's fine, because I totally spent one and a half thousand dollars on this accessory that marks me as a smug upper-class, privacy-invading nerd. Google Glass is here to stay (and don't forget I was into it before it was cool)."

    • by gmhowell (26755)

      "I'm going to wear these obnoxiously ugly glasses that happen to record everything I see. People object to my presence, but that's fine, because I totally spent one and a half thousand dollars on this accessory that marks me as a smug upper-class, privacy-invading nerd. Google Glass is here to stay (and don't forget I was into it before it was cool)."

      Bzzt. False. Lies. Why would you make up shit like this? It was the hipster's mommy and daddy who spent the money on this toy for their overgrown manchild. (Ok, ok, it could be from a trustfund...)

  • Bully! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mythosaz (572040) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:16PM (#45832009)

    When I wear it at work, co-workers sometimes call me an asshole. My co-workers at WIRED, where we’re bravely facing the future, find it weird. People stop by and cyber-bully me at my standing treadmill desk.

    You've got a standing treadmill desk, and it's GLASS people make fun of?

    This guy's already living the douche life.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The article writer is oblivious.

      I think they WANT to believe that people think they are an asshole for being "of a higher class" or "richer" or whatever.

      The article writer doesn't seem to grasp that it has to do with the camera & microphone. Perhaps they don't WANT to grasp it.

    • The fact that people accept the treadmill desk that don't accept glass tells you that glass is on a whole other level of doucheness
    • People stop by and cyber-bully me at my standing treadmill desk.

      If people walk by, physically, in real world, his desk... they send him not so nice instant messages? Can't they cyber-bully him from behind their own standing treadmill desk? You know, outside of his FOV.

    • Treadmill desks are actually cool. A lot of what I do is reading, thinking and typing - and (except for debugging really intricate logic), I do that as well whether I'm sitting or walking 1.6 mph. I am pleased with how my 2nd hand ikea desk + used treadmill is working out for me. An example: jerker-treadmill-desk [ikeahackers.net] (not mine, but a similar setup - I've read the jerker desk is out of production at Ikea, I was lucky enough to find one on craigslist).

      So yeah, I'm a fan of the treadmill desk and recommend th
  • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:17PM (#45832019) Homepage Journal

    The ads are more relevant to his interests than ever before!
  • by areusche (1297613) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:18PM (#45832021)

    Go f*ck yourself Matt Honan. I should invent a "Glasshole Killer" hat which projects a bright IR light onto the user's face effectively blinding the device's recording capabilities.

    It will take hell or hight water to get "Glass" onto the people that spend god awful amounts of money on fashion and tech toys. The glasses are ugly looking AND imply that you're being recorded. There is resistance for a reason. The glasses need to be completely innocuous for this entire fashion/tech concept to take off. "

    • by ArcherB (796902) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:46PM (#45832263) Journal

      All these people so worried about being recorded in public are already being recorded in public!!! Look around you. Do you see that camera in the corner that is always on and always recording? Other than mobility and the fact that user has to audibly say, "record" on Glass, what's the difference?

      • by areusche (1297613)
        I do notice the billions of cameras and that pisses me off also. This isn't a step forward, but a step back.
      • by bonehead (6382)

        All these people so worried about being recorded in public are already being recorded in public!!!

        So, let's say that once a week while you're walking in to work, a stranger runs up and punches you in the gut.

        That makes it A-OK if someone else decides they want to start doing it hourly, right? After all, you were ALREADY getting punched in the gut, why would you object to more?

        Or, in a nutshell, your reasoning is fucking idiotic.

    • Once it gets into the hands of the pubescents out there, any social norms may be thrown out the window. Today's kids grew up w/ the likes of FB/twitter/etc, and saw no problems with sharing everything about their lives on the 'net. Today, many or most do not care that they are constantly broadcasting their location to the ether, with GPS accuracy (I might add, as most of us put up with the fact that we broadcast our locations to cell towers at all times). Tomorrow's kids, once price and availability for Gla

      • yes yes and the written word will lead to the end of civilized society and the downfall of mankind. We've heard this one before, Socrates bitched about it a few thousand years ago and it's neither more original nor more accurate today.

      • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @05:42PM (#45832739) Homepage

        Once it gets into the hands of the pubescents out there, any social norms may be thrown out the window.

        This reminds me of what happens in Baxter and Clarke's The Light of Other Days [amazon.co.uk].

        --- SPOILER ALERT ---

        Long story short, access to cheap wormhole camera technology becomes ubiquitous. Everyone can see (and thanks to lip-reading software and the like, hear) anything happening anywhere. Among all the other societal upheavals, there's a passing mention of a couple of teenagers playing hide the sausage on a sidewalk bench in the middle of the day and no-one (by that point) caring.

        Anyone who still cares for their privacy in this society wears a light-blocking cloak and communicates by touch in light-tight rooms.

        By the end, they manage to send wormcams back in time, discovering (among other things) that the "first" single-celled organisms where in fact left behind by a race of intelligent crustaceans that evolved billions of years ago and were later wiped out by some kind of environmental disaster, IIRC. And yes, they did get a look at the crucifixion, but there were so many wormcams swallowing light in the sky that day that the sky grew dark and at the moment of Jesus's death, interference was too great to get a clear view.

        Good book.

      • by bonehead (6382)

        Today's kids grew up w/ the likes of FB/twitter/etc, and saw no problems with sharing everything about their lives on the 'net.

        We have a whole generation of kids who are going to be in for a VERY rude awakening in a decade or so when they find themselves entering the workforce and discovering that having all of their (perfectly normal) youthful indiscretions documented for posterity and only a google search away for anyone who cares to look might have been a really bad idea....

    • by gmhowell (26755)

      If they were that innocuous, they wouldn't be a 'fashion' concept. Double edged sword there. Judging by the author and the writings of most Glass users, half of the point (or more) is "LOOK AT ME!!!!11!!!! I'm wearing Glass!!" Hard to be better than everyone else when it isn't obvious.

  • My wife has given birth to two children. I am fairly certain I could have been doing a mariachi dance on her forehead, wearing a clown suit while singing the chorus to "My Heart Will Go On" in between bites of a cheeseburger and she wouldn't have noticed, or cared. She'd probably object to me using any networked appliance (including my phone) to take photos of her lady parts, but even that she wouldn't notice until later (and the murder case might even make slashdot, as the google glass may have been the mu

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:21PM (#45832045)

    >> Glass separates you. It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the “explorer” program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion

    Um...OK. Self esteem problem much?

    >> his wife wanted him to take pictures and shoot videos of their child's birth, but not with Glass

    Maybe she's one of those "passive aggressive" weirdos who doesn't want video of their private parts uploaded to the Internet. Good luck in divorce court, man.

  • by Todd Palin (1402501) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:24PM (#45832061)

    It will work out fine for all the people that really love technology but don't actually have any real life friends. You know who I'm talking about. No friends = no one to object.

    Personally, I'm offended if one of my friends spends more than a few seconds staring at a smartphone in a social situation. Its OK if they excuse themselves from the group, but it isn't if they are sitting with other people and mentally somewhere else. Google glass is the same, but maybe worse because you think they are there but aren't.

    • by mvar (1386987)
      This. Plus the device is an atrocity. Did the author of the article think he'd wear such a stupid looking thing and pass unnoticed? Now if (or when) they manage to implement this technology on normal eye glasses, it will be a different story overall
    • by ApplePy (2703131)

      Personally, I'm offended if one of my friends spends more than a few seconds staring at a smartphone in a social situation.

      Amen, brother, preach on!

      It's not like I'm Miss Manners or some socialite from finishing school, but that really chaps my hide. It is perhaps the rudest behavior I can think of.

      I was at a party a while ago when half the room was busy on their phones... I loudly said, "hey, I'm at this party with people I know... but I'm busy sharing it with my REAL friends on Facebook!"

      The phones stayed put away at the next party. :) I think people just don't realize how rude it is until you point it out.

  • by Kiyooka (738862) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:24PM (#45832065)

    I think it's premature to assume the ubiquity of google glass. The Nokia Ngage failed, largely due to the highly negative social factor of holding an odd large plastic brick to your head in order to talk ("sidetalking").

  • by Spy Handler (822350) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:28PM (#45832101) Homepage Journal

    And it's not "inevitable". Just hip fanboi hype.

    Problem with Goggle Glass is that it's in your face. It's conspicuous. It may not be recording at the moment, but you don't know that for sure.

    It's like, if I'm walking around holding a cellphone in hand with arm stretched out and pointed in such a way that it looks like I'm recording a video, and then started engaging in conversation with people while still in that pose, but now the camera is pointed directly at them, people will get uncomfortable. (unless of course the person I"m talking to wants to be recorded). It's in their face. It's annoying.

    Google Glass is kind of like that, all the time.

    Another example: you might be walking around in a city where it's perfectly legal to carry firearms in public if you have a permit. And say it's a shall-issue state where anyone can get a permit if they don't have criminal records, so a large percentage of the population does. Now you're in a crowded city area, and you *know* many of the people are packing concealed heat. But it rarely crosses your mind because it's not in your face. Out of sight, out of mind.

    But suppose instead of concealed carry, people are walking around openly wearing their Glocks on their hips, AK-47s slung across their shoulder and so on. This is in your face. Your reaction is going to be much different.

    • Which brings up an interesting point about social expectations. In certain parts of the country (think rural Alaska, maybe Texas and similar areas), firearms are ubiquitous and pretty much ignored. You can hitch hike with a rifle an get picked up (by persons other than the SWAT team).

      Most places, however, openly carrying a rifle or shotgun will raise hackles. Which is where we are today with respect to ubiquitous recording devices. Forward another decade or two, let people get used to the things and Goo

      • Forward another decade or two, let people get used to the things and Google Glass rev 5 will be considered normal.

        You're assuming that it ever catches on. Judging from the reactions on this board, where technophobes are pretty thin on the ground, that doesn't seem too likely. Contrast that to many other gizmos where, especially on sites like this, the response is usually overwhelmingly positive. Tell Sergey to play with one of his other toys - this one isn't going to cut it.

        • by csumpi (2258986)

          judging from the reactions on this board

          Your judgement is incorrect. People are just pissed that they were not selected for the beta program. Let's try a different post:

          Google glass giveaway!

          The first 10k commenters will receive a free pair of Google Glasses.

          How long would it take to get 10k posts?

    • You don't know for sure it's not recording you except the bright red LED that comes on when it's recording you, like on any camcorder made in the last 15 years.

  • by QilessQi (2044624) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:32PM (#45832141)

    (or at least, frames which look ordinary) then you'll see wider adoption, especially among people who already have prescription lenses. You'd go to LensCrafters or whoever, choose one of the Google-Glass-compatible frames from whatever manufactures are partnered with Google (with bluetooth, speaker, and camera embedded in temple pieces), get your custom lenses ground and overlayed with a transparent embedded heads-up-display, and voila.

    I'm guessing that the hardware isn't currently there, or at least not in such a small size, but soon probably.

  • "We are Pentium of Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated."

    s/Pentium of Borg/the Google

  • Just like
    http://www.youtube.com/user/SurveillantCameraMan?feature=watch [youtube.com]

    Only missionaries had a good time with him :)
    • by socz (1057222)

      So what is the "normal" way "one should act" if someone shows up close to you and just starts recording? While I find it funny on this side of the screen, obviously some don't appreciate it while in front of the lens.

      I get his argument that we're recorded everywhere, but it occurred to me, do the public recordings have audio that goes along with it.

      I work in Downtown Los Angeles. So on one occasion I noticed something mounted to a short tripod. After walking up to it and visually examining the device, I cou

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Personally, I don't give a fig what they look like. They don't look particularly odd to me at all, and I would no sooner welcome someone pointing a cam-corder or smartphone at me for no apparent reason (or especially if the apparent reason was that I was giving birth at the time -- sheesh!)

    "Class divide"? Please. $1500 is not a lot of money for plenty of hobbies that are popular among most classes that can scrape together any amount of money at all. How far will $1500 go if you are into working on cars?

  • People is more opposed to google glass not because it gives augmented reality (or at least a sort of HUD) to their users, but because could be recording everything they see. But what about more discrete (and cheaper) lifelogging devices like Narrative [getnarrative.com] or uCorder [ucorder.com] which only goal is to record everything you see? And that is just about video, any smartphone user can record audio without being noticed. And yes, the ones watchiing the video stream could be the NSA or similar ones, but how you know that you are n
  • Wearing Glass separates you. It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the âoeexplorerâ program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face.

    More likely: Wearing Glass separates you by telling everyone immediately that you are likely recording them without asking.

  • by jdastrup (1075795) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:56PM (#45832323)
    ..just hold your own smartphone up by your face, as if you're recording them while you talk to them. Whether you are recording or not, I can't imagine the Glasshole won't be slightly annoyed by what you are doing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Or, as a Glass user myself, I would simply look at you oddly and then feel sorry for the fact that you don't understand the technology, how it works, how you actually use it, and that you're so entrenched in your hatred for the device that you're willing to take hyperbole into the physical realm.

      I don't understand the hate on this site. Maybe its Microsoft and Apple shills trying to drum up negativity about the device. Where I'm from (East Coast) people were excited to see it. When I was down in Miami with

      • Or, possibly, we see our privacy slowly eroding, and people wearing glass as the modern equivalent of or the cheerleaders for this movement.
        I view it as a stepping stone to more loss of rights, and you as their willing accomplice masking it as innovation and modernity.

        To make the analogy: you're the sailor working on a slave ship wondering why people hate sailing.

  • Scenario (Score:4, Funny)

    by StripedCow (776465) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:58PM (#45832345)

    Imagine you're using your laptop in the subway, some guy wearing Glass sits next to you, peeks at your screen for 1 second, and starts analyzing what you're working on, using his Glass.

    PS: I wonder what Glass would have looked like if a human's ears were not located at approximately the same height as their eyes.

  • Somehow I doubt that all would be required to make you forget you're squeezing a baby out is Google Glass. I'm fairly confident in saying nothing would do that, actually.

  • by mikecase (1991782) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @05:29PM (#45832599) Homepage
    I've had Glass for a couple of weeks and the experience has been interesting. I live in a area w/ about 250,000 people and there are probably fewer than five (including myself) who have Glass. I've been wearing them around town to see how people react to them and so far it seems pretty positive. Some people just kind of look at me oddly, but many people recognize what it is and ask me what the experience is like. This is what I tell them: Sure, it's great to have access to (most) of the Google Now functionality without needing to look down at my phone. Text messages delivered to the HUD is handy, as is responding to them via voice. For the most part though, there isn't a whole lot these do yet, certainly not enough for average consumers to care. That said, the potential for business/industrial use is HUGE. Most people's first experience with Glass won't be as a consumer item, but rather as something they use for work. Think construction workers, or people who work in hospitals or laboratories. Many people will be exposed to these via applications in the work environment. You, as a consumer, may not be very interested in Glass, but there are many businesses who want/need something like this for their workforce.
    • I agree that most people here don't seem to understand what this will eventually mean. They seem preoccupied by the notion that someone is videotaping them, when in reality pretty much everything they do is utterly boring to anybody but themselves. I'd be more worried about it recording my behavior; since Google seems to be a big fan of using aggregate data to model people. But all that will be trumped one day by the ability to look at something, Google it with optical pattern recognition, and see the re
  • by murdocj (543661) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @05:41PM (#45832727)

    It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the “explorer” program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face.

    Really? You point a video recording device at people and you think they are getting annoyed because you are so elite? That comment says way more about the author of the article than it does about the people he interacted with.

  • Google has managed to come up with something even more intrusive than this classic evil scheme from The Phone Company [youtube.com].

  • by Windwraith (932426) on Wednesday January 01, 2014 @12:32AM (#45834873)

    This is just a wearable HUD, why is people so obsessed about people with glass being on a 24/7 stream of whatever the user is seeing?

    First, nobody has the mobile bandwidth for a 24/7 stream. Nor the storage space. Nor the battery.
    Second, you aren't that interesting when you are outside. No. Really, you really aren't. On the street every one of you, myself included, is as notorious as a gray pixel in a perlin noise image. Unless you live in a village where everyone knows each other, and even so, they already know you.

    I have never seen a device creating such a level of paranoia and stupidity. You are supposed to be the smart guys, not the ones crying around like old men fearing something new. Stupidity like "hold your phone in front of them durrrr" or "punch them!" . Are you serious? Why not burn them at the stake, since you are talking unreasonable bravado, why not go the extra mile. Let's burn them all!
    Fearing that magical device that surely records you without any action from the wearer. I assume that to take a picture you gotta press a button or say a keyword aloud or something, it's not gonna read your mind and turning you into a magical cyborg spy.

    Of all people the people of slashdot should know the limits of technology better. You are just disappointing, I'd expect this from pitchfork villagers, not readers of "news for nerds", some hardware developers or hobbyists that know how stuff is supposed to work. You know how much taking photos and video drains the battery of a cell phone. This is a mere attachment to a cell phone, and is subject to the same limitations. Imagine a Pebble watch.

    Sure, consider me a troll for being realistic, I got karma to spare. But if you want to believe in the magical device that will record you indefinitely, with an infinite battery, storage and network bandwidth so google can specifically see you scratch your crotch at a public place, sure, go ahead.
    And, no, my privacy when I am outside doesn't bother me at all. I look my BEST when I am outside, please record me like that. I am precisely ready to be seen. And I am already being recorded at work, and my behavior is pretty impeccable.

    And, besides, if google actually managed to produce magic to have a full stream of you talking to the glass user...you really want to be recorded being a little douchebag pointing your phone at him/her thinking you are making some heroic statement for freedom, but in reality just being a rude guy? I seriously doubt you do.

    As for me, I like the idea, specially for potential AR stuff, but sounds like it will induce headaches easily. I might want to wait for an advanced second version or similar.

  • by l3v1 (787564) on Wednesday January 01, 2014 @11:46AM (#45837071)
    "People get angry at Glass. They get angry at you for wearing Glass. They talk about you openly. It inspires the most aggressive of passive aggression. ... Wearing Glass separates you. It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the âoeexplorerâ program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face." [emph. added]

    I agree and disagree with many of the above statements, but overall, I just think he simply doesn't get it.

    People start talking about you openly because, hello, you are there with a device that can record their every action and every word they say, and you wear the device knowing what it can do, and without caring about whether other people like that or not. So if you allow yourself the liberty to disregard everyone else, why would you expect to be treated any differently? Maybe they think talking about you will make you stop, since for legal reasons they might not have any other way to stop you at most public spaces - besides common sense and basic social etiquette which you might consider learning about sometime.

    And yes, wearing it might set you apart, but not because we might think you are 'special', or that Google thought you're 'special', but because it makes an obvious statement that you don't care about other people's opinion of being monitored and recorded without notice, which makes you a jerk (at least).

    When meeting with GGlass-wearing people, I ask them to put it away while having a conversation. If they don't, then I shouldn't be talking to them anyway.

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.

Working...