The big problem with The Glass is that people don't like being overtly recorded in private spaces. Bars started banning them for good reason.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, it's not hard to record covertly with a smartphone right now.
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.