I’m a Google Glass skeptic and think it’ll be the next Apple Newton
andrewchen.co
andrewchen.co
I'm certainly skeptical about how successful Glass will be in the next year or two, but not about the wearable, low-profile device market altogether.
Both a watch and a screen on my glasses provide me with the convenience of an interface with my phone that is always visible.
I like the iWatch for most use-cases better: changing a track while walking, seeing if I should answer my phone while at dinner, reading an SMS at a party.
Google Glasses really excels in other use cases: directions while driving and GoPro video making. Other than that, I'm afraid it falls flat for the reasons listed in the article.
If I had to bet on a winner between iWatch and Glass, I'd choose iWatch. For Google to win out, they need to focus on situations in which augmented reality is most useful, sending text messages isn't it.
>Most of these are basically simple things you can already do on your phone
Google glass has a trackpad on the side, for the cases you say are better on the watch, you don't even need to look down to accomplish with glass.
Something that invasive up by the eyes would make me feel like a complete pariah.
Perhaps having on your "glass" would be equivalent to say, having a press hat - ie, you're on duty and publicizing the fact that someone could be googled at any moment or being recorded, etc.
Just yesterday I had a long conversation via IM with my girlfriend using only Android's voice input while I was walking down loud, crowded NYC streets.
And the commands for Google Voice won't be much longer than "ok" or "coming home" anyway. Commands are literally "Ok, Glass, <short command>"
But in this case, I was clearly talking into a phone even though I wasn't always holding it at my ear. And I think in most large American cities (certainly New York, at the very least) ignoring strange people on the street is about as natural as breathing.
In terms of technology, what's not ready yet on voice control is a way to magically read into the user's gait. That is, I often find myself pausing to think when I type, but when I do that as I'm speaking a sentence, it's often interpreted as me being done with the voice input. Similarly, if I'm speaking out a chain of directions "text Ronald McDonald that I'll be at McDonald's in 10 minutes" there's often confusion between which portion of the voice input belongs to which command. This only gets worse as the commands get more complicated.
Bottom line: I don't necessarily agree with the author that voice input "really sucks" due to input accuracy, but I do think that any experience that relies solely on voice input for interactions (especially when it's designed to be used primarily in public spaces) will really suck.
Apple will 're-invent' it in ten years time and market it to us all for $1500 as a luxury product that all Apple nuts will be a 'have to have' product. Google will then release Google Glass+ two years later, which is free, but advertises products and services to you based on where you are and what you look at constantly 24-7.
Wired will then publish an article that states how often men really look at women's breasts, because Google released anonymous data usage of Google Glass+ LiveStreetView (I claim the inventor's rights to this btw).
Microsoft will come late to the party with Microsoft 'Goggles', which confuses everyone, because although looks good, everyone thinks must be crap, because Microsoft released it. Steve Balmer finally retires. Everyone in Microsoft breaths a sigh of relief.
Nix guys are just laughing their heads off. They've had retinal implants for 5 years and record everything to their private clouds.
Insurers start to demand that all people wear a Glass Recorder for insurance purposes, and before you know it, all recordings legally have to be saved by the government to prevent terrorism.
Future looks rosy through those rose tinted spectacles... Count me out.
This is true of the developer version only. It is a prerelease at that price. The final version is not going to cost $1500.
These implants will not wait for your input to feed you information (although they will certainly have that ability too). Instead they will serve information as your environment and conversations demand. Having a conversation where someone asks "So how did WWI start anyways?", the answer will appear in front of you. Upon arriving at your local ski hill and telling your friends "Ok let me to take a leak first and then we'll hit the slopes" your invisible assistant would instantly give you directions to the bathroom and queue up he directions to the ski-lifts. This will be cool on an individual basis, but imagine if everyone had their "invisi-Glass". While having a conversation with someone your implants would sync up, showing both of you information as it relates to your dialogue. While basically eliminating awkward pauses, it will also act as a kind of NFT (Near Field Telepathy)
(12 boring things)
The point is you don't have to look away from where you are or make the people you're with feel ignored just to do a simple thing like checking the time. Glancing at a clock on the wall is less disruptive to a conversation than digging your phone out of your pocket.
Humorous example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UjcqCx1Bvg
You get over it. Really, really quickly.
The focus on the video camera....welcome to the modern world. Video cameras are everywhere, and if that is such a profound focus of people's concern, you might want to fly around the planet a few times to turn back time because it is unavoidable.
In both one party and all party consent situations, audio can still be recorded. The governing law with regards to recording audio is Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119 of the US Code. As with most laws, trying to read and understand it is a daunting task. But it all comes down to one definition in this code. Section 2510 Paragraph 2 states:
“oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication.
So, this essentially means that, if a person expects their conversation to be private, then it is illegal to record it. So, it is up to you to ensure that they don’t have any expectation of privacy
Google Glasses are not surveillance devices. They are not surreptitious. By the notions of all party consent, every smartphone video capture (which includes audio, and often includes the conversations of other people) would see people thrown in jail. Is that happening?
By any rational measure a big camera on the side of your head tells everyone that they are being recorded. No one will ever see any legal issues for this and that is a gigantic red herring.
Do people want to adjust every aspect of their lives to deal with people recording them on video at all times?
People should because in many ways this is already happening. Go to a social gathering, or a public event, and you are being recorded, probably from multiple vantage points, through the duration.
But let's say that we're talking about a friend -- assuming that they wanted to record you (the simple existence of a camera aside), they are recording their experience that happens to include you. Selfish notions that one has a bubble of exclusion seems quaint and a little odd.
I just don't think it's such a big deal. At all. Do you get paranoid and panicky whenever anyone pulls out a smartphone, with which they could ostensibly be recording you? For that matter their keychain, or countless other products, can actually be video recording devices.
This does not match my experience of personal interaction at all.
I suspect that viewpoint is in a very tiny minority.
As I'm not a celebrity and most of these events are dinner parties, that would be a huge surprise to me - most of my friends do not record video at all.
I see them everywhere. Perhaps it is regional.
To your other comment, the vast majority of life is not "deeply personal" or confidental business conversations. Most of life is entirely banal. Which is, I think, how people derive different opinions on this: I don't think I am particularly interesting in the various settings where people capture me, so I just don't care. Others imagine some grand conspiracy where everyone is desperate to watch them, and thus are sure that everyone is spying on them.
Then smartphones got video capabilities, and again...tool for pedophiles and creepers.
It's the same garbage with every advance of technology, usually by people with an agenda.
Similar tech has been used in some headsets for years to create a fairly accurate speaker that, when I used it at least, was whisper sensitive. From what I remember nobody knew if the tech was 'reversible' in the sense it could be used as a mic but I guess it's theoretically possible.
I hope this, or another suitably accurate replacement, is used in Glass. I'll be really disappointed otherwise.
At the time, the Newton was ridiculed for it's less than accurate handwriting recognition. It was a touch-stone for comedy, where shows like Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons would find endless potential.
Google Glass should be so lucky as to have this kind of presence.
If anything, it's destined to be the Nintendo VirtualBoy.
(I'm not affiliated with Metaio, nor am I currently developing any augmented reality applications)
Ha! I'm very, very excited about Glass for the weather opportunities, actually. The data collection that Glass will offer with regards to the weather is going to be incredible. With a simple app that pings outside Glass wearers, I'll be able to automatically gather incredible amounts of valuable weather data.
I'm doing this on phones right now, too, of course [1]. But Glass opens up whole new doors that the author of this post is completely missing. Author, if you're reading this: You're making the assumption that nobody will innovate, nobody will build anything new that would provide unique value to the device. You're wrong.
[1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...
> Would you ask people to take pics of the sky?
Yeah, maybe. I'll add more to that below.
> What does Glass add that currently isn't possible WRT gathering data?
Since we don't know the hardware specs in very much detail, the only functionality that we know for sure that will be helpful is the camera. The key difference between this camera and a phone camera is that this one is on the user's head. Asking users to take sky photos is likely much less intrusive through Glass than through a phone. But asking them to do this isn't really our style:
The original Glass demo video showed the wearer just looking at the sky in order to have weather information delivered [1]. I was imagining something like this for pressureNET. If I could hook into that same operation, I'd be able to automatically take a photo of the sky whenever the user intentionally looks up.
Imagine millions of people every day looking at the sky. So. Much. Data.
And of course, this is only using the camera that we know is there. We'll have to learn more about how Glass actually works and what developers will be allowed to access in terms of background functionality.
After installing CrowdEyes on your Google Glass, your Glass will automatically take pictures every so often, or whenever you think you saw something interesting. Those get aggregated and categorized.
As a client of CrowdEyes you can then say: I'd like to be 25 cents to see pictures people have taken of the sky today in my town. Or, I'll pay 50 cents to see what the lines are outside some hip new restaurant right now.
Or as a jealous wife, I'll pay $15 to run facial recognition on pictures taken with Glass in a 3-block area around the house of a suspected mistress.
As a law enforcement officer, I'll request (for free) all pictures taken of of my suspect. Or maybe multiple vantage points of some crime that was committed. Or if someone is out there and running, maybe I can request all Glass within the suspect area to be on real-time lookout for the suspect. Think about that "Ambert Alert" system times 1000.
As a marketing manager at some Big Brand , I can find some perhaps anonymized informationa bout who's using my products (easiest with things that have logos, can you make a watermark in clothes that would not be noticable but visible when analysing a high resolution photo?)
As a reporter, I can get hundreds of shots of some event and pick the best.
As the TV report on the new Glass-24 channel, I can get multiple real-time streams from some disaster happening.
* Recording. Glasses make it difficult to tell if someone is recording, making the act socially acceptable in many places it would otherwise not be.
Think of the children.
If someone is in a highly technical situation, where the primary focus isn't other people, but technology or architecture, then I could see a lot of applications for augmented reality through such a device.
I can envision teams of several to a dozen people in a virtual reality supporting one or two people wearing Google Glass in the field or on a business trip. The fields of vision of the Glass wearers would be shown as "screens" floating in a virtual reality, so that the support staff wouldn't get nauseated from having their vision entrained to the POV of the field Glass wearers.
A quick quiz of the people in my office shows that:
0% were wearing sunglasses inside at the time of asking
~7% said they wear sunglasses inside on a regular basis
~25% said they do not own sunglasses
I don't dispute the other points you make, but on this issue it seems you are a bit bubbled/optimistic.
If its a good experience, I can see voice control, lack of apps, price, etc, all being overcome.
If it's a sucky experience, I think it's doomed
Does the author think cellphones would let me do this?
[1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/ Black Mirror: The Entire History of You
I may own Glass v1 and develop for it as a hobby, but I doubt I will have it replace any functionality which I currently rely on other devices for.
However, I'm incredibly excited about the technology and what it means for the future of personal / wearable computing.
You will never see me hanging out with anyone who has a camera pointed at my face at all times.
This way the Glass can be controlled from the watch using touch and voice commands.
I know for a fact this won't see mainstream adoption, that's obvious. But whether Google will sell enough to the excitable people with no fashion sense to make a v2? That's hard to predict.
I agree that most people wouldn't be excited about wearing it all the time or paying the initial cost.
Of course, the price is too high for what it offers right now, but it's kind of like the Pixel: a vision of the future that can be attained relatively easily for anyone with the dough. It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices. The Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time. So far, we've seen nothing like Glass. It's a milestone.
So it will take time, and it is a paradox to have two devices that do the same thing connected to each other, but Glass is only going to spur a big change.
The Newton did not.
And you seem to be obsessed with the future and less concerned with reality. People don't need to check email, weather, time, ask questions so frequently that they need a fixed device on their head.
The technology can affect usage patterns as well as the reverse.
Like it or not, the cloud is the future. The Pixel is a glimpse of that.
That'd be a hard argument to make, given that the term "PDA" was coined to specifically describe the Newton.
The only tablet-style computer of consequence prior to the Newton was the DOS-based GRiDPad (1989). Before that it was all "palmtops", that is, crummy keyboard devices, mostly running DOS.
> It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices.
I think the Newton had a enormous influence on other mobile devices, but not really because it was a tablet, nor because it had a stylus and handwriting recognition. Rather, the Newton's influence came first from its dedicated operating system and graphical interface custom designed around its usage model, rather than cobbled together on DOS. The Newton devised a number of UI concepts in use on smartphones today. Second, the Newton featured a nice application development environment which sat on top of a dynamically-bound programming language running on a portable virtual machine (NewtonScript), which was pretty much a first for devices of this kind. NewtonScript had a major influence on the development of Java, while Naughton and Gosling were mulling over Oak. Third, the Newton was promoted as being a wireless communications device and its OS was developed to be easy for mobile communication to get baked in. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out so well for Apple.