The tech behind Glass is amazing, and I'll probably end up owning one, or something like it. But Google is showing how completely disconnected they are from social reality outside of Silicon Valley: most people are still just getting comfortable with smartphones, and resenting their capacity for distracting their friends. Add in the fact that you never know if you're being recorded, and that the source of distraction is on the person's face, all the time and you've got a recipe for the worst brand awareness campaign ever.
I think the product is likely to find successful niches among hardcore nerds, security personnel, the military, maybe even medicine. It's cool and probably useful for all sorts of things. But most of society is going to draw a sharp line and hate this technology for at least a generation. (I'm probably too out of touch to predict what the kids will think.)
What about when the technology becomes invisible? Imagine a tiny screen that is in the corner of where the earpiece of glasses meet the lens, or by the nose bridge. Then you won't know if someone is wearing it. Also the video camera can become almost hidden also. At that point, people may become suspicious of anyone wearing thick horn-rimmed glasses.
Incidentally, a couple days ago I spoke to someone wearing sunglasses. I did not find myself wondering if he was zoning out even though I couldn't see his eyes because there were other indicators that he was engaged. I did not check to see if the iPhone in his pocket was recording, nor did I really focus on his button up shirt to see if there was a tiny camera recording me.
In an essentially pre-Glass world all the technology needed to zone out in social situations while surreptitiously recording audio and video already exists and is accessible, yet I've never really worried about it. I strongly suspect this is a made-up problem. There may be many issues with Glass, but my hunch is this won't be one of them.
> I did not check to see if the iPhone in his pocket was recording, nor did I really focus on his button up shirt to see if there was a tiny camera recording me.
You know why? Because the phone was in his pocket, and if a camera was on his shirt, it was very well-hidden.
The fact that Glass lives on someone's face, the thing our brains are hard-wired to focus on, punctures a hole in manufactured normalcy and brings the issue right to the surface. Especially given that the whole point is to use it: all it will take is someone drifting off in conversation while staring into their mini-screen, or blurting out "Oh, that's so funny, I just put it on YouTube", and it'll leave a sour taste with everybody else.
I can't predict whether or not Glass will succeed. I can confidently predict, however, that there will be a strong social backlash.
"Who else was in that?" she said.
I unfolded my napkin and got the silverware out. "I don't remember."
She got out her phone.
"No, don't go there."
"I. M. D. B." Her fingers.
"Oh, Cristian Douglas," I said. "It was Cristian Douglas."
Still typing, head leaned back, under the spell of her phone.
"Yeah, Cristian Douglas and Bob Willis."
She said nothing.
"Sheila McIntyre."
"Yep," she said.
"Dougie Boons."
And then, after a minute of watching her lit-up knuckle slide around, past the side of her phone, she said, "Mel Gibson."
I put my hand over the phone. "Stop."
She looked around my hand.
"And-- and--"
I slammed the phone down and her hand-- I slammed them down on the counter.
"My phone!" she cried.
"Stop it."
"You're no fun."
Me: "You're no fun!"
Her: "That was really rude."
Me: "Don't look things up while I'm talking!"
She was wriggling her phone out from under my hand, but I held it tight. For a second, I was tempted to yank her out from the booth and twist her arm behind her back, but instead I just let go.
- why the lucky stiff
It's only inevitable that the problem clearly outlined by the genius why the lucky stiff will be exacerbated with Glass.
It's the digital equivalent of taking a newspaper and holding it in front of your face while talking to someone else.
Precisely my point: this reality will be forced to bubble to the surface in public awareness when the recording device is literally in your eye-line while talking to someone wearing Glass.
You're focusing on reality. I'm talking about perception. 98% of the population does not know about the ubiquity of recording devices. After Google Glass, they will.
I think the product is likely to find successful niches among hardcore nerds, security personnel, the military, maybe even medicine. It's cool and probably useful for all sorts of things. But most of society is going to draw a sharp line and hate this technology for at least a generation. (I'm probably too out of touch to predict what the kids will think.)