Hacker News Reader

Quite honestly I just don't see a good reason for the camera. There was never a useful application for them - attempts at augmented reality were shitty, not useful, or creepy (or all of the above).

e.g., that app that would show you someone's LinkedIn profile when you looked at them. Yeesh.

Add that to the (IMO at least somewhat fair) criticism around private spaces and IMO there's not a good case for keeping it. I'm personally hoping the next iteration at least has the option of being camera-less, and that they add in the requisite indicator light if the camera is on.

The creepy facial recognition apps were demos or proof-of-concepts. Part of the conditions for developing for glass (at least when i was an explorer) include agreeing to not do facial recognition at all.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of the camera as being "never useful."

The best experiences I had with glass revolve around "OK glass. record a video"

Whether it's catching someone's license plate in traffic, doing something really cool and sharing the first-hand experience with my friends, or recording a pool shot or curling throw so that i can later review it to work on my form.

The cards were far too limited. Any meaningful engagement involves pulling out your phone. In fact, I would argue that without the camera, There is absolutely no point to google glass. You can do google voice commands and use headphones with any new phone.

> "Whether it's catching someone's license plate in traffic, doing something really cool and sharing the first-hand experience with my friends, or recording a pool shot or curling throw so that i can later review it to work on my form."

Only the first use case is actually improved by having the camera on your face rather than your phone.

I'll gladly admit that having the camera already strapped to your face makes it faster to use than something you have to pull out of your pocket - the problem is that this speed has very little marginal benefit 99% of the time, and pulling the phone out of your pocket isn't really that big of a pain in the ass.

I see Glass similarly to how I see most Smart-Things - they solve a problem that most people don't really regard as problems.

It's either strictly inferior to pulling out your phone (via limited/inaccurate/slow input like voice or the swipe-pad), or it's slightly superior but only marginally so. And it's 95/5 the former vs. the latter. Not a compelling case for a product at all.

> "Part of the conditions for developing for glass (at least when i was an explorer) include agreeing to not do facial recognition at all."

I'm aware, which makes the device even more pointless. At least the LinkedIn Recognizer had some semblance of a use case, albeit creepy. I don't think anyone was able to come up with anything mass-market using the camera that was actually useful - niche enterprise uses most certainly, but mainstream mass market?

> "In fact, I would argue that without the camera, There is absolutely no point to google glass. You can do google voice commands and use headphones with any new phone."

I half-agree with you - I don't see much point in Google Glass outside of niche enterprise/industrial context, camera or no. That said it might be the less shitty smartwatch (itself a product that solves a problem most people don't really regard as problems) - I'd prefer a little screen at the corner of my vision over a buzzing vibrating blob hanging off my wrist demanding I raise my arm every time.

So yeah, maybe Google Glass can rival smartwatches in terms of usefulness. Fine company it keeps, then.

Actually, that LinkedIn facial recognition app sounds awesome. I have trouble putting names to faces at large events like tech conferences, and it would be great to have a subtle 'This is Bob, the CTO of WhateverCorp, you have a meeting with him next week about the Random project' show up when I scan a room. Isn't facial recognition and then looking up the relevant background details the go-to application for most 'futuristic' imaginings of wearable tech?

This is the worst argument in my opinion. People can record you in private spaces using cell phones and watches without you ever knowing. Not to mention security cameras.

That's all a far stretch from the idea of interacting with someone who you know has a camera pointed at you all time.

Glass is new form of something that is currently: done covertly (hidden cams, sneaky smartphone use), obtrusively and temporarily (holding up a camera/smartphone) or by entities that already eschew social convention for their own business ends (security).

I see the act of wearing glass as a social confrontation. A dare that says the wearer think upping the intrusiveness and pervasiveness of recording should be fine because Google said so. And the reaction to the first roll out shows that people feel similarly.

This sort of notion ignores major realities of Google Glass: That it is not realistically capable of continuous recording, and that taking a photo with it has always been pretty obvious/distinct of a behavior.

If I wanted to take a photo of you with Glass, you'd have plenty of time to turn away, put your hand up, or whatever. And you'd certainly know I was doing it.

Not bothering with privacy rules because of on the technical constraints of today's technology is a dangerous game, because when better technology comes along you might find what "everyone does" is already on the wrong side of all the clear lines in the sand.

I mean, 50 years ago it would have been ridiculous to suggest the government could transcribe and search all phone calls - consider the incredible cost of all those typists, filing cabinets and reel-to-reel tapes! If someone had said "because we already have technical constraints, there's no need for ethical or legal constraints" we'd be in a difficult position when the technically impossible became possible.

Sure, but this is no different than smartphones. The parent comment above mine says Glass is a "new form", but it really isn't. It's just an Android device with a worse-than-average camera and a worse-than-average battery life and a worse-than-average capability to covertly record other people.

In the vein that you can buy a pen camera that'll do a much better job for $30, worrying specifically about Glass seems silly.

Security camera footage rarely ends up on Facebook, though.

That was always a silly argument. Every bar has security cameras. Everyone at the bar has a camera in their phone. It was a pretty crappy camera without enough battery to stay recording. If you wanted to record someone this would be the last thing you would use. Bars started banning them because other customers were made uncomfortable but it was always just FUD.

The objection to this is how incredibly powerful pervasive recording has been in exposing social injustice, on many levels. Recording the outrageous racist behavior of police is done in large part by users taking recordings.

We had the exact same problem initially with cellphones, if you remember. Even down to bars banning cameraphones.

All Glass1 needed was a damn recording/capture light and the entire problem would be gone.

A recording/capture light wouldn't have solved anything. (The new model does have one, mind you.)

The reason it wouldn't have helped, is that the Glass screen had to be on during photo capture/recording, and it's quite noticeable when it is to the observer. It's "a light".

Most people who seemed to take issue with Glass had never actually seen one. I had no issues with anyone I interacted with over the year or so I wore mine daily.

> The reason it wouldn't have helped, is that the Glass screen had to be on during photo capture/recording, and it's quite noticeable when it is to the observer. It's "a light".

A clear, recognizable red recording light is MUCH more recognizable and reassuring than the screen light and the, "I am totally not recording right now."

Also google's decision to market an experimental device in the most pretentious way possible still is a pretty amusing and cringeworthy. We got one and went through the sales "gallery" thing. We were struggling not to laugh the entire time.

Hopefully they'll be smart and hand out devices to people like photojournalists, doctors and other professionals who will help make the idea more... adult.

Google definitely could've done a better job addressing concerns quickly. But while a red light, sure, would be more recognizable, I doubt it would be any more reassuring if it wasn't on.

Again, almost anyone who complained about this issue had never actually encountered a Glass Explorer IRL. My experiences interacting with people for real were entirely different than the comments of those online expressing such concern.

Google allegedly did select Explorers based on what they said they'd do with the device. But then it turned out they outsourced evaluating or completely not reading responses to the contest, and pretty much selected randomly. The person who said they'd use it to "cut a b----" won one.

Honestly, the best thing they could've done to dissuade concerns was to have more events in more places where people could try them on, and see what the thing was about. (And early, before selling them widely.) In my personal experience, nearly everyone I encountered wanted to try them, and wanted to know more about them. I encountered zero people with strong concerns about the device in my daily travels.

I think that issue will fade over time. Society is quickly adjusting to the panoptical norm. People complain that they do not like being monitored, but few do anything beyond the cursory installation of an ad blocker. HN is very much in the minority when it comes to digital privacy concerns.

Also, it's not hard to record covertly with a smartphone right now.

It's actually very difficult to covertly record with a smartphone. You may think you're being sly and discrete, but everyone sees you doing it.

You can put it in some kind of camouflaged spy gadget, but I expect that to be about 1 in a million random weirdos so I don't worry about it. When suddenly everyone has the opportunity to do it with some thing on their face, it's a different story.

The real problem is the design. They're too conspicuous. The state of art in electronics (or design) isn't quite there yet. When they make a version that's less Borg-like, more people will want to wear one.