Hacker News Reader

Comment by raldi | Hacker News Reader

It wasn't so long ago that you were a douche if you walked around in public talking into a cell phone.

Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person.

Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist had some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.)

Then again, there was a time when you were a douche if you rode around on a Segway... and that period never ended.

So I guess this could go either way.

View on HN

Unlike these other things, owning Glass is an "all-in" proposition. You can put the cell phone away. You can park the car. Hell, you can get off the Segway even.

Glass? It is on your face. It is part of your identity. Having met a few people wearing it, it is hard to imagine a more in-your-face device to own. It's one step shy of a tattoo on your forehead. When you meet someone wearing these things while they are not commonplace, the first thing you will notice when you meet them is Glass. If the perception is that Glass = douche, guess what, your first impression everywhere you go is going to be "douche" before you even get to introduce yourself.

You can take it off, sure, but if people are wearing them around their neck all the time they will eventually start just leaving them at home.

It's a huge, huge problem. I wish Google luck but also at the same time worry they are going to set back wearables for some time by pushing a Segway-like device onto the public before it's ready.

How is putting your cellphone/Segway away different than putting your Glass away?

When would you know if the public is ready for wearables without releasing a product?

If Google sells hundred of thousands of these, the public is ready.

If you put your cell phone away, it goes in your pocket. If you put your Segway away, it goes in the garage (or something?) It's still useful there since you can access it when you need it.

If you put Glass away, you basically invalidate the purpose of Glass itself, which is to be an always-available HUD for your life. (At least as far as I understand it.)

And yes, I agree the only way to know if the public is ready is to release a product. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it but I'm pretty bearish on them being able to pull it off. My gut is that there is a product that exists between "cell phone" and "heads up display you wear on your face" that would have reduced the risk of colossal failure. (Similar to how there is probably a product between "E-Mail" and "Google Wave" that would have worked better too.) There are just too many things that have to go right that have nothing to do with technical prowess. If it was just about algorithms and data I'd be cheering them on, but it's not, it's mostly about stupid fuzzy human being stuff, and Google has always struggled with that. (Though they're learning quickly!)

If I was going to make a prediction I think Glass will flop. The only way I could see it not flopping is if they get something out there quickly that genuinely looks cool and doesn't have a huge pricetag. (Not because price will inhibit purchasing it, but because if it is high priced it will immediately be known as showing off, ie douchey, to own one.)

I think the next step towards pervasive always-available computing is going to be wristband/watch type stuff with flexible displays which provides a nice step forward ubiquitous-computing wise, leaves room for creative design that can spawn a array of fashions, will be affordable, and will not require forging of new social norms on the way. (I'm 99% sure this is where Apple is headed.) And lets face it, a slick-designed slap bracelet that you can post to Facebook on is going to be fucking cool, whereas a cyborg-like eye-piece is at the very least going to get mixed reviews.

I actually do not have any idea if Glass will flop or not.

Personally, I'd only wear it indoors for the meantime. Maybe when I'm climbing or biking too.

I'm part of a Glass User Study since last year. Google is very careful to not make it a distraction device but rather a device to assist you by having information available with just a tap or voice command. This is the main reason that the API is only a Mirror API, just a notifications service.

What's compelling is it being a camera. Glass wearers take way more photos and videos.

I believe that will be the main use-case. Smartphones need several actions to take a picture. With Glass, two voice commands or just push a button.

I'm giving Glass the benefit of the doubt.

When people used to ride horses, I bet those who drove the first cars looked weird. Riding horses were the social norm and not riding oversized machines.

"How is putting your cellphone/Segway away different than putting your Glass away?"

I don't need a segway to focus in on anything more than three inches in front of my face.

> It wasn't so long ago that you were a douche if you walked around in public talking into a cell phone.

You still are. It's still considered rude to subject everyone to your cell phone call. These people walk up to the register while on a call, block the sidewalk while distracted, and otherwise are clearly not actually with us in this universe.

http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/07/12/breaking-the-rules...

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2438977

http://formingthethread.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/cell-phone-...

> Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person.

Yep, the 'showing off' part is still douche.

> Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist was some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.)

This one too. Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/fashion/watches-are-redisc...

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/150719282/in-cell-era-timepiec...

> Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges

A watch to a man is like a purse to a woman - an accessory (and/or jewellery).

Fair enough. What I meant is that a licensing model would be cool because it would offer the same tech in endless fashion applications, instead of forcing to wear a wire structure on your head. For the moment I'm afraid that in the beginning it will be what it is, and after some time there will possibly be some special designer editions for a bazillion dollars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com