No One Is More Excited For Google Glass Than Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg | Hacker News Reader

No One Is More Excited For Google Glass Than Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

forbes.com

39 pointshugoc50 comments

Someone in a Reddit comment coined the term 'glasshole', likely in reference to the type who walk around with the bluetooth piece talking loudly about 'important' things.

For those who have seen the film Children of Men, there's a scene in there of a young man in a nice apartment who is playing video games on a strange, futuristic headset which, if I remember correctly, somewhat resembled Glass. He looked like he had psychological problems.

We're getting closer and closer to Surrogates/Gamer/Sleep Dealer/etc, something I'm not excited about at all.

I find this mentality so, so strange to see, especially coming from what I assume are fellow engineers/programmers.

We're at a time where almost literally every single book every written is with me in my pocket everywhere that I go, as well as every piece of music ever recorded, and every film ever made.

I have the world's largest library, bigger than anything that the Greeks or Egyptians could have even dreamed, and I carry it with me, every day, in my pocket; most of the people I know do too! We're all constant patrons to humanity's most complete and largest collection of art and information.

And now this library is being made even more available to me. I can immediately call up the sum of human history just by glancing in my peripheral...

...and this scares you? You don't like it?

Is this fear?

Certainly there will be assholes. One of the saddest things I saw last year was people at burning man constantly hiding behind a gopro or other camera, and I called them out on it constantly "be here with me! Don't hide behind that lens!" etc.

But these people have existed forever. There has always been cameras.

And for distractions there has almost always been books.

The glass isn't "new" in that sense, it's just better.

Famously, "Cyberspace is where you are when you're on the phone." With Google Glass, that becomes "Cyberspace is where you are."

That has obvious pluses, but it's foolish to ignore the minuses on the other side.

It will always be there, always demanding a fraction of your attention.

You'll get used to it, certainly. But that won't mean that it's not taking part of your attention. It will just mean you got used to it taking part of your attention.

The question is how much attention we have to spare.

Indeed, our brainpower is finite. We have dramatically increased the amount of data available to our brains, but not our brain's ability to process it. I believe that cellphones, Google glass, and other "augmented reality" systems are all just stepping stones on the path to a direct neural link to cyberspace. Hopefully, by the time we reach that end, we have the ability to boost our brainpower so that the new surge of information does not diminish all our other senses.

At present, too many people equate "having literature on your cellphone" with "understanding that literature." For certain types of information (e.g. manuals, data tables) having a searchable format is almost as useful as already knowing the contents. Having a searchable copy of Hamlet, however, is not nearly the same thing as having read it. When the day comes that I can have a ethernet port in my head, and downloading a text file of Hamlet is virtually the same as having read it with my eyes, I will gladly sign up. But until then, looking around at all the people with various headsets, phones, and now Google glasses, I will chuckle to myself, because all I see are glassholes missing out on the world around them.

I don't think the OP ever said they were scared. Not liking it and being scared of it are quite different things.

In the same way that these technologies have made data access easier, they've made being a rude asshole easier. There have never been more ways to not pay attention to the person talking to you, and to put a digital wall between you and the people you are supposed to be interacting with.

Information has existed forever. Tech makes it more accessible. Assholes have existed forever, but tech introduces brand new ways to be an asshole.

"Better" really depends on your opinion of what's going on. The problem with someone stuck behind a camera isn't the camera, it's the act and result of sticking yourself behind it: Making that easier and less apparently-intrusive doesn't take away the problem, it means people will be doing exactly the same thing (probably more people, since it'll be more convenient) and you'll still have the same reduced fraction of their attention, you just might not realize it right away.

At best they'll have to fidget with the device less and might be marginally less distracted, but this is still just making the problem easier to cause. You're happy to have all the media in the world at your fingertips, and that's understandable; however, now everyone can have all that media right in front of them, between them and you, very easily.

Maybe I'm just very short-sighted (I do have an awful prescription, har har), but I see absolutely no way this could do anything except make the problem you describe worse.

It's interesting to think about how underutilized some of that knowledge actually is in the broad scheme of things - for instance, how popular is reading the classics of literature, versus the latest novella of the day?

Changes in technology have a fundamental impact on the way humans interacting with the world (for better or worse), an interesting book called The Shallows [1] highlights some of these points. Is the technology we're utilizing moving us in a direction that is long-term beneficial or harmful? People can access information more easily, but at the expense of what - lack of focus? Problems with deep thought and long-term planning?

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp...

The biggest issue I see is that information has become cheap and hence just less valuable. How much more would I get out of reading Shakespeare if I didn't have hundred's of blogs analyzing everything he's written? Before, I might join a discussion class or really read the stories and take the time to find meaning in them. The fact that its right there lends itself to just almost not caring.

While I don't deny the huge advances you mention, what scares me is what will eventually become the mainstream use case for the device. Given, I don't know what that use case will be but I'm pretty sure it will not improve human interaction.

As for your assumption re:engineers/programmers, I am just a full-time lover of tech news and a part-time cynic of where what I read will take us.

Have you stepped outside recently and seen just how many people are stooped over a smartphone? We're living in that reality right now, only people are developing neck problems doing it.

It's the trend for even further individualization in society. We are already as a society less communal and having another device that is even more always on, gives us even less reason to interact with our fellow human beings.

Gargoyle from Snow Crash also comes to mind. I don't yet know if this is a bad thing or just another stage in the way humans live our lives, but it's definitely going to be interesting.

I downvoted you, because your entire comment is predicated on the fallacy of generalization from fictional evidence, and what I'll call "argument by pithiness".

Very well, but imagine Glass at its potential. And now compare that with the images in such films (fictional as they may be) where people are shown just loafing around all day and night, doing nothing but interacting with their headset because everything (minus nourishment) can be attained via their headset.

I upvoted him for exhibiting what I call "argument by imagination".

I think there is ample evidence that the technology made available to use in recent years (Bluetooth headsets being a great example) have been used in ways that tend to annoy people. I think it's at least a valid argument that Glass might exacerbate that.

Giving credit where credit is due. The Reddit user who coined the term I mentioned was hoikarnage, under the "A first look at Google Glass' UI" video posted the other day.

I bet he likes it, now users don't even have to submit anything any more to be monitored :/

That's my thought: Zuckerberg would likely support any development that increased the amount of personal data users were willing to submit to a service. Reducing the friction of doing so is secondary, and in these ways the interests of FB and Google are aligned.

And why do you think Google likes it?

Really?!? Because I'm pretty sure no one is more excited than me...

Did anyone else get a malware warning? Not sure if I accidentally clicked something on the page or if it was triggered by something loading but my office malware blocker stopped a redirect then I was able to continue reading the article.

No malware, I linked to the 'print' page of the article which has a cleaner design but Forbes.com is doing a redirect it seems.

you can become a tester for $1500: http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-one/

Interesting marketing term for what is traditionally known as a "customer".

That's a great reason not to buy it.

I'll pass. Gladly.

The thought of Facebook on Glass makes my blood run cold. Thank you for reminding me why early adoption may not be recommended here.

Which is why Google will probably keep the API's as tight as possible in the beginning, and as integrated into Google+ and Youtube as possible, and Zuckerberg and Facebook deserve that.

Sure you might be able to share some pictures, although probably not in a very easy way, but I'm sure Facebook will not be able to have any kind of deep integration into Glass or Glass apps.

It'll be completely jailbroken within a week of release, like everything else in the universe.

And if they try to force tight integration with G+ and youtube at the expense of Facebook, they'll just be insuring that consumers want to install the break.

Consumers will want facebook integration. If it isn't on the glass, there will be other products pretty soon that will have it

I agree with you. But there are different levels of integration. I can't imagine glass will be much different than Andoid when it comes to Facebook.

Setup your Google+ account to sign in to Google Play, and then you can install the FB app, if you want to.

In fact, when I imagine the Google Glass software, I imagine a modified/extended version of Android. That way it fits together with everything else - phones, tablets, google play, google+, etc.

> In fact, when I imagine the Google Glass software, I imagine a modified/extended version of Android.

My first guess was that it pairs with your Android phone. Does anyone have access to one that can comment on what it is doing?

Can someone throw me one so I can start reverse engineering things? please?

Wonder how long it will take for Samsung to whip up a galaxy glass

They can sell millions of devices before they even need to consider the wishes of mere mortals.

There is so much hype going on.

IMO, at over 1k per device they would be lucky to break 1/2 million units without significant improvements.

And that'd be an impressive set of early adopters – which would be huge for a product that is designed to share experiences. If it really is as compelling as it looks, a half million users will quickly sell many, many more units.

At least, that's my conjecture.

I'd be shocked if they sell hundreds of thousands.

That would open Google to accusations of hypocrisy, no?

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/20/google-gundotra-video/

Apple is one who likes a closed system. FB and Google both want to be on every platform and want everybody on theirs.

He's probably referring to stuff like Facebook not allowing you to export your contacts.

That will be because the nefarious asshat (Zuck) can find more ways to obtain data without you having much choice.

No One Is More Excited For Google Glass Than Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Yeah and no one is more excited for FB stock's relative comeback than Brin. Please.

If I was Mark, I would be incredibly excited. Imagine the advertising opportunities. You (as a FB user) would wear Glass because it allows you to stay in easy contact with your friends. In exchange, FB gets location data, that they can use to sell ads. Imagine if FB could popup an ad (or a coupon) for a store as you walked passed. Or tell you how many of your friends liked the restaurant across the street (displayed if the company opts in (for a fee of course)). And the ads would be displayed right in your face. Just think how much a company would pay for that.

Google did not build glass to make 200 million dollars selling it; they built it to make another 10 billion on Ad sales. Said that, its not hard to imagine that Google will be extremely defensive in giving anyone, including FB extensive access to their Ad plate. If anything, this will be an extension into G+ and, if necessary Google will prevent this walled-garden in court.

Thinking "how much company would pay for that" does not get me excited either. It been proven over and over again (through different social networks) that just because my friends likes something, it doesnt mean I will like it either. It neither means I will be more reluctant to try it out. "Like" on its surface does not prove me much information, and most FB users know it by now. Example: if someone "likes" chick-fil-a, what does it means? Does it mean they prefer chicken over beef? Does it mean they love the company? Or simply they are an employee of said company and want to look good in case their employer peeks on their wall? Or maybe that they support c-f-a's Christian roots of not hiring gays? Or perhaps because they hate humanity at all and they love that c-f-a puts aluminium and MSG into their food? "Like" alone does not mean "yes go eat here and spend your money its worth it".

presumably you could do all that on a phone too, yet they havent....

On a phone, you could ignore the ad, and there's limited screen space. On glass, you ARE going to see it, and the screen space is your entire field of vision.

Edit: I think Glass actually solves a huge problem with mobile for FB/Google/MySpace/etc: displaying ads. Right now, they make virtually nothing from mobile users, which is a threat to their company as more people use their phones/tablet/etc to access the site. With more screen space, they would easily have room for non-intrusive ads, and ads similar to what is displayed on the desktop. So they should be able to fix their problem with mobile.

Edit: I think Glass actually solves a huge problem with mobile for FB/Google/MySpace/etc: displaying ads.

Who's problem is that? I have never heard a user complaining that only 2 ads fit on the small screen. Have you?

The part you quoted clearly says it's a problem FOR fb/google/etc. They have acknowledged the problem repeatedly in the financial statements. Maybe try reading a little closer?

The part you quoted clearly says it's a problem FOR fb/google/etc. They have acknowledged the problem repeatedly in the financial statements. Maybe try reading a little closer?

So poor FB and Google have a problem because they cannot fit 50 ads on the screen. What a shame, they cannot make another $10 billion a year. To solve their problem we will wear some cheesy glasses so we cannot escape ads. Get what I tried to say? The glass solves Google's ad "problem," if but only if enough users become Glassholes. But why should they? What problem do they solve for average Joe that cannot be solved by iPhone or Android or W Phone? None

FB and Google do not get along, let's leave it with that and with these pet projects Google is sucking out all the PR air.

These glasses solve absolutely no problem for most people, you can glance at directions on your smartphone and walk for 200 yards. Rinse, repeat. This is an ad companies' dream and could be used in specialized fields but that's about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com