No. But it's different when you resort to name-calling just because of something a person wears or what a person looks like.
Call people douchebag for their actions.
Call people douchebag for their actions.
Basically Glass requires that Google release a product that is fashionable out of the gate. There really isn't going to be second chances with something like this. Google isn't exactly known for being a company that has good intuitive fashion sense. I'm sure they're A/B testing the damn colors for gods sake.
It's a tool for me. Like my computer or camera. Same with my phone.
Ask yourself: if you shut Glass off and just wear it will it change the way people perceive it? (Right or wrong.) If not, then it doesn't really matter what it does, its success or failure will be based upon how it makes people feel when wearing it.
If Glass is actually revolutionary in the usefulness department I suspect we'll see the same sort of behavior we see with smartphones - many people owning and using them and a small number of people complaining about them alienating everyone from society. If it turns out to be just a gimmick, I agree it probably won't catch on.
Though there are some pretty odd ideas about mainstream fashion in this thread, too. See the above post by someone who thinks that watches and expensive cars are unfashionable. I trust HN for a lot of things, but views on fashion (and on what's likely to become fashionable) isn't one of them.
There is also a huge difference between something that lets you see and something that affords you the convenience of not having to reach into your pocket to read Twitter.
The last device that made you look smug, started off extremely expensive with the goal of getting cheaper with volume when the public inevitably scooped them up, and provided a convenience viewed as overt laziness because a cheaper more widely acceptable alternative existed was called the Segway. Glass already checks off two out of three (it's expensive, and is for people "too lazy" to take out their phone.) It remains to be seen if it hits the trifecta of also just plain looking doofy. I've only seen it on nerds and celebrities so it's hard to guess just how far on the doofus totem pole your average Glass wearer is going to be knocked.
I seriously doubt the accuracy of that judgment.
Likewise with the rest of the post. 'smug' and 'lazy' are nice, quick labels but none of it actually serves to differentiate the Segway from any other product. (I mean, 'started off extremely expensive with the goal of getting cheaper with volume'? Really?) The Segway just didn't fit a niche. There was no reason to buy one, so they stayed rare and weird. Which is also why they remain fairly popular as a tourist attraction in quite a few places.
The idea that Segways exude a 'douchebag' field (along with an irrational hatred of mall cops) seems to be either highly regional or simply confined to the Internet. Just based on my own anecdotal experience, of course ;)
I was one of the people out there defending the Segway's absurd price point as a temporary condition since it seemed "obvious" that everyone would be riding around NYC on Segways in a few years. Segways would be incredibly useful in cities even today for getting around local neighborhoods, expanding the distance you can feasibly travel on a outing on foot. But you look dumb on them, they cause awkward interactions, you sit yourself on a tier above "normal people just walking around", and you are viewed as lazy relative to bikers. All of these aspects have clear analogs to Glass wearing. It makes no sense because people in cars do not look lazy relative to pedestrians. People are funny when it comes to self-image, regardless of utility.
The real question is whether or not 'the masses' (and especially teenagers) will pick up on the things, though. Smartphones followed in the cell phone's wake. So 'Facebook' might actually be a selling point, unless Facebook hatred picks up first (an extreme dislike for Facebook being yet another thing that essentially no one outside the techie-sphere shares).
The problem with Glass is this incubation period is happening at the same time the public is forced to come down on if the device is cool or not. Just like the "iPad is a big iPhone" meme died down after people built cool iPad apps that showed how it was different, so will happen with Glass unless the backlash is so strong it is cemented as a unwearable nerd-toy too quickly.
If cigarette companies managed to use marketing and product placement to make smoking be cool and fashionable, I bet it can be used to make Glass look cool. Not sure if they are doing the right campaign, but they are on the right track.
Like choosing to wear a stupid-looking $1,500 distraction-generator?