Scoble says Google Glass is doomed
plus.google.comMy bet is on Google Glass going the way of the Segway...
...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.
If Southpark does an episode on Google Glass that's anywhere near as hilarious and insightful as their Segway episode "The Entity" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entity_(South_Park) -- then it's doomed! Matt and Trey's commentary on The Entity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WweVv41qQpc -- "Well, I guess you don't HAVE to do that..." -- Full episode: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e11-the-ent...
"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.
I think if someone can succeed at putting similar technology in normal looking glasses it will have a much better chance of success, otherwise I agree.
That would help, but I am not confident that it could be made as socially acceptable as for example smartphones.
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.
> That would help, but I am not confident that it could be made as socially acceptable as for example smartphones.
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.
Removing the camera (+mic) would certainly fix the creepiness for me. Even then, it's still a bit of a problem. The person I'm talking to could just be looking at their Google Glass. It provides a new way to be obnoxious and self-centered, which sadly many people will take.
Truthfully, my willpower isn't that great. I might be one of them if I had Google Glass.
It was definitely a somewhat weird experience the first time I talked to someone who was wearing something vaguely like this. I had a grad-school interview with Thad Starner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thad_Starner) in 2004. He had a DIY eyepiece he wore everywhere, with a chording keyboard slung on one side near his waist. The whole interview was filled with these weird moments of, "so is he making eye contact, or looking at something in his eyepiece?"
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.
Removing the camera (+mic) would certainly fix the creepiness for me - and make the problem you mention in the next sentence worse. Having a screen in front of your eyes 24/7 can only distract people. Having a camera and mic on it enable you to interact with your surroundings; and while not all apps will use them, it changes the focus and center of the device - thereby changing the way people interact with it.
Once upon a time if you had a pager you were probably a drug dealer, unless you were obviously a doctor. Social mores change, and so far they have trended towards accepting more and more invasive and distracting gadgets. I don't see any reason to think the line in the sand is here instead of the 10 other places people thought it might be up to now.
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.
I'm very excited for the second and third generation oculus rift, or whatever succeeds it. If I can get something with a sunglasses form factor and a front facing camera with "pass through" mode, I'd just wear it all day (while working). For me, the killer app is a virtual desktop where I can arrange a wall of windows around my laptop. I don't own any furniture and tend to bounce around furnished apartments, so being able to have a replacement for multiple 27" monitors that I can fit in my laptop case would be a godsend.
Edit: as long as it has vim bindings. :)
Agreed. I think Oculus Rift will launch a VR revolution. It may be a few more years before it begins to really take off, but it might just turn science fiction into reality.
How hard can it be to just stick them in some aviators? Plenty of people would be after a pair of those. You could be half geek and half Lou Reed circa Street Hassle.
Same usual mistake: Google Glass is NOT a proper HUD (Heads Up Display), or a proper form of Augmented Reality. It doesn't project anything on the main vision area, but only on the little screen on the upper right side.
I've used one briefly so I am aware that it is not a HUD, but it could still provide a limited form of augmented reality useful for police. Always displaying the current address, a running list of local reports, etc. With some computer vision backend, it could constantly detect and scan license plates, and display alerts to the wearer when it found stolen vehicles.
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).
...which is its advantage. I doesn't take up your full viewing space, but puts the information right in front of you.
That's no advantage at all. A real AR HUD wouldn't need to 'take up your full viewing space' but could place information where it was relevant.
What I meant by that was that it doesn't put itself into your line of sight, but when you do want it, it is (very) easily accessible.
That's true, but it's not an advantage that it's not a true HUD, since a true HUD could place the information out of your line of sight or within it as appropriate, whereas Glass cannot.
That's the usual mistake of wearable computing?
Google will probably abandon it before being content with it only ever being a niche product. I'm not convinced that it (including future iterations) won't become accepted by consumers, though. Everyone is still evaluating a product that is not yet "ready".
Biggest problem I see is in many places and situations, some one even suspected of poking a camera in peoples faces are likely to lose that camera. Maybe be gain a few bruises in return. I know full well that I would not be even slightly comfortable being in view of some one wearing these things. I mean, I don't like the NSA slurping all my data, why on Earth am I going to accept people wearing these things around me? Yeah, claim its some how different, but that isn't going to cut any ice whatsoever with me. Its a camera stealing my image and associated metadata and putting that information out of my control. I don't want people poking those damn things in my direction.
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..... ;)
Something about the authors writing style just rubs me the wrong way. Kinda like an advert that was carefully crafted by a team with the sole purpose of triggering a specific emotion.
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.
It's Scoble. I guarantee he's not carefully crafting anything other than his own thoughts. I appreciate the fact he calls out his emotions in his posts - why blame him for your own emotional response to reading it?
>I guarantee he's not carefully crafting anything other than his own thoughts.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor
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 sort of agree with you here. If anything, he's a nexus of reader's potential reactions. Such is his nature!
I'm in a Chinese airport minus VPN, so I can't read the article to see what he means by fitting it - but in my experience it takes <20 seconds to adjust the nosepiece for a new person. Very small problem compared to the general issue of looking like a cyborg, IMO.
That was the one bit of the post that I didn't understand. Google is now shipping Glass to Explorers without them meeting Google employees. Given that, it seems the custom fitting can't be so essential.
I find it amusing that he uses G+ to write about it.
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.
I find it amusing that he uses G+ to write about it.
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.
a "Voluble" circle
:-D
There should be one light that turns on and off to show when the wearer is recording, and another light that is always on to show when the NSA is recording.
A visible light doesn't solve anything though ... I mean ok, no I will install an app to turn it off, no way to know.
He proclaimed it the next big thing just 8 months ago. https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS
Then, he is wrong often. http://odonnellweb.com/pelican/posts/2013/Apr/google-glass-i...
While I admit his first review was comically hyperbolic, he really hasn't changed his view very much. In both posts, he states that the price point is critical. In this new post, he merely states that it will not hit the right price point in 2014. His last sentence:
"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."
I called Scoble a narcissistic douchebag eight months ago (Get it? Shower == Douche! ;). But I've known that ever since he live video blogged from in line to buy the first iPhone with a webcam attached to his trucker's cap. He replied "thank you", and then claimed that he found my criticism quite motivating (the psychological term for that effect is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_supply ), before he blocked me. https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/1015157966444465...
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
To me scoble is an attention whore. Does anyone remember this image of Scoble wearing Google Glass? http://sitegoals.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/904635_10201...
What is the context from that photo? What are you trying to imply from it? It strikes me as simply a funny photo. I don't see how it warrants name calling.
He's in marketing and a technical evangelist. It's his job.
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.
Don't agree with your tone, but agree with your point.
I hope Google Glass is a bait-and-switch. It's a low-resolution UI and they are getting constant user feedback of how users are using it (e.g voice vs touch usage). I hope what really is happening is that its driving the design for Google's Watch.
However, post-Snowden I don't see myself using either.
I can think of so many things that can go wrong from sexual harassment lawsuits to a samsung-or-other-made battery exploding in the face of the user.
1. Has to have a light to indicate recording, or everyone around you will be paranoid. (Most people will still be paranoid, but at least you can say "No red light, it's not recording!").
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)
This whole light thing seems a bit out of proportion, like being paranoid of people wearing shades in case they are eyeing you up (which is more than half the reason anyone wears them in the first place).
I recall reading that a lot of women wear sunglasses so that you can't make eye contact with them, as a lot of men use eye contact aggressively.
A goPro mounted like an alien beacon on top of the rider's head could be a clear signal to a-holes that their behavior will easily be recorded. I could see a whole secondary market in decoy helmet mounts appearing. Google Glass might just inspire more rage since it lacks the goofiness. Drivers may get a sense of levity from the goPro. It's like seeing the antennas on little cars that make them look like remote controlled cars... so cute - "Go ahead. Cut me off. You're just the cutest little two seater I ever did see!!"
You can get (kids!) helmets with built in cameras already. When the UCI drops their helmet cam ban then we'll see some good pro ones.
Strava already has a Glass integration they showed off at the last Glass dev demo.
The Recon(?) cycling augmented glasses look pretty good too.
As if the NSA won't be able to turn on the camera and microphone any time they want, without turning on the warning light. Riiiiiight.
There is a reason why the GoPro is still in the form factor it is in. It is terribly hard to pack most of the GoPro's features into a small volume, they went with something cubish and built accessories off of that. The Glass couldn't keep up to the demands many fans would have and I imagine there is a struggle within the company concerning the increasing demands for resolution, frames per second, and image quality with the volume of the form factor they have.
That said I do see helmets with HD cameras and wireless controls in the future. Trademark™ and all that.
"You know who wears sunglasses indoors? Blind people and assholes." -- Larry David
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.
Um… bluetooth earpieces? See them left in lately?
I think that's more of an ego thing that people don't like, such as, "I get a lot of important phone calls, so I might have to stop talking to you and start talking to the person in my ear at any moment." Maybe it's the same with Glass. I don't know.
I was thinking about that point as I was reading through this discussion. The whole "Borg" Bluetooth earpiece thing does seem to be passe. (Personally, my problem with them was always that they ended up being out of juice when I needed them so I just use a corded headset when I use one.) I'm not sure what this observation says for wearable computing, if anything.
Glass is already successful. It was the most written about tech product in 2013, deflecting attention away from Apple and reminding people that Google can still be innovative.
I agree with your sentiment, but I wouldn't call it successful until they've translated the interest into sales to users who are not early adopters.
What is the purpose/point of google glass?
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?
I would have said "hands-free city navigation", but everyone - Google, the "explorers", people who meet them in the street - seems to be preoccupied with the photo/video applications. I don't know if that's because the device is actually defective for that purpose in some unobvious way, or because people just can't look beyond the video-recording use (or if not that, the notification-firehose one).
(continuing his list)
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.
I've been wearing Google Glass every time I leave the house for 2 or 3 months now. My social interactions have certainly changed; lots of people either recognize it as Glass or ask about what it is.
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.
> You might as well carry a huge banner that says "I'm a giant nerd."
Got that reaction with big clunky smartphones 15yrs ago. Now every Joe in the vicinity keeps earnestly stroking their Facebook app.
Screw it :-D
I'd say the core concept isn't doomed, but amongst the 'lean-back' (tv, dvd) and 'lean-in' (Laptop, tablet) UI modalities: the 'in-your-face' glass modality is certainly going to have a struggle balancing age old social norms with disruptive tech. Especially when there are good reasons for the social norms.
hmm, yeah but remember folks, Scoble dissed Apple's iPhone chances too :)
This is the problem people have with glass, they feel like their privacy is being invaded and it is not solving a painpoint. So google is going to know who i am looking at and what products i am looking at.... come on, this is ridiculous! I need to feel that this is a utility not something of excess i do not need. This can help doctors as info on pubmed quickly, collaborate with other docters quicker especially in urgent care. But telling that it is going to know who and what i am looking at, my intoxication etc, just does not make me want it. Imagine if Jobs marketed iphone as a way to take creepshots of females or the supposition of anything like that.
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.
The privacy thing is really a big deal, it cannot be underplayed. You can probably get the public to buy into it for police, since you can sell the "it will keep the police honest" angle, but I cannot think of any painpoint that it would solve for the general public, when worn by the general public.
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.
I don;t know if u downvoted me, but what u saying is exactly what i am saying, the privacy issue is a big issue and they keep on piling on features that are creepy. I wish the first version did not have the ability to take record videos or take pics but to only display video and pics. Then the public and public places like restaurants would have been more accepting, but the cat is already out of the bag, so we will see how this unfolds.
I did not downvote you, I agree with your point about privacy.