Robert Scoble and Jaron Lanier on wearable technology [video] | Hacker News Reader

Robert Scoble and Jaron Lanier on wearable technology [video]

bbc.co.uk

40 pointswhyleyc36 comments

You may or may not like him, but Jaron Lanier is right in that interview: It is dangerous that corporations control the data of devices you are supposed to wear.

Scoble doesn't seem to care about that.

What a total mismatch.

I like Scoble for providing us access to all kinds of interesting people and ideas. Not his opinions. I mean seriously, calling the guy and asking him for his opinion is like talking to the door man outside some important persons building.

Scoble doesn’t seem to care about anything. He behaves like a highly uncultured person who haven’t got a clue about pretty much everything except his job.

When you hand the type of person you described Google Glass.. they become a Glasshole. This might be the best definition yet. (Disclaimer: I LIke Glass, just not some of the fools who use it)

Incidentally Scoble was one of the people brought up to ask questions during Google I/O 2013, and identified _himself_ as a "glasshole."

This doesn't seem like much of a grilling because it's essentially coming from Paxman's naive/populist viewpoint rather than direct experience or deep thought. Jaron does provide some of those perspectives, but carefully distinguishes between the device's attributes and Google's attributes - the former being relatively benign and the latter being potentially evil or manipulative or at the very least commercial. I would like to see a longer, unmediated conversation between the two techies, because it seems like the their excitement and resentment come from the potential of the technology more than its current implementation. Such a conversation could actually influence development toward one kind of Glass future or another.

The comments about narcissism are interesting for the public but are ultimately banal and non-specific to this particular technology. The related questions about privacy and how the technology further eliminates barriers between public and private life, however, could use a lot more popular discussion...

As far as I remember Paxo is no dummy, so this looks like a superficial fluff piece to fill time on a slow news day.

What would have been more insightful would be for them to talk about the commodification of the self and how various aspects of personal life are, or will be with the aid of new technology, increasingly commercialised and turned into some kind of property in a manner which they weren't previously. So for example I doubt that whatever companies are selling AR systems in future will be able to resist the temptation to "harvest" and sell personality or health metrics to any other organisations which might want to buy.

Total waste of time.

Lanier is obnoxious and comes off as a total clown. Paxman is not really interested in the topic. Scoble is just a Glasshole.

I'd like my 10 minutes back.

I respect the right of those who can to downvote me, but I hope it's not in defense of Glass.

I love the product, I can't wait to get my hands on one.

Objectively however, the 3 speakers really offered nothing.

But what could Robert do better? He answered why he likes Glass, and after a few sentences, he was always interrupted by the interviewer. He couldn't provide any more insight in such a short time he was given. But I agree with you regarding the other two guys.

I agree I was probably a bit harsh on Robert.

I was a bit put off by the photo of himself in the shower.

I found the host obnoxious, personally, and the show was from the outset staged as a Fox style take-down: Scoble is "self-obsessed" (this "narcissism" angle was a recurring theme in this. Yet another discussion about Scoble taking a picture of himself in the shower...in a series of blog posts where he was talking about integrating Google Glass into his life) because he uses the device for biometrics, leveraging technology for better health insights? I'd say as a 48 year old male he's making a smart decision.

Another irritating aspect to every one of these discussions is the argument that Google is an advertising company so therefore everything they do is and will always be about advertising. While Google has some golden handcuffs of advertising dropping a lot of cash in their coffers (which their competitors have as well, as an aside, to varying success. Microsoft has an ad branch. Apple has an ad branch), they have endlessly been demonstrating that they are trying to build secondary businesses.

The raw cynicism to discard an entire computing experience is not useful.

The host is something of a legend here in the UK :)

Not least for this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00r2912

Some years later, Paxman admitted he was just stalling for time because the next segment in the program wasn't ready yet.

I think I would go less with "legend" and more with "notorious twat". Can't stand that aggressive style of interviewing myself, especially because now every half-wit newsreader thinks they're the next Paxman by interrupting the interviewee every 5 seconds.

In what way was he being a twat in that interview? The MP kept responding to his question as if he hadn't heard it, so Paxman repeated it, many times, even apologizing for repeating it, and eventually giving up.

Paxman can be quite aggressive, and I would say justifiably, with politicians trying to avoid answering a question. For another side of Paxman see this interview with Christopher Hitchens - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00r2c42

I summarised his technique a few years ago like this:

JP: Jon, don't you think it's morally inexcusable that you molest young boys?

Jon: Jeremy, it's not true that I molest young boys, that's misrepresented by the...

JP: I asked you whether you think it's morally inexcusable that you...

Jon: That's not the point, I haven't done it in the first p....

JP: Please answer the question, is it morally inexcusable or not that....

Jon: If I molested young boys it wouldn't morally justifyable that....

JP: Is it or isn't it morally inexcusable, Jon?

Jon: argh

Americans often find Paxman's, "You didn't answer the question so I'll push for an answer" style of questioning unpleasant.

The above statement summarises everything you need to know regards the relationship between journalists and politicians in the UK and USA.

I'm Canadian. Nonetheless, his approach is very similar to the type you find from Fox hosts, so I find it odd that you think this demonstrates some sort of American/World divide, when really his approach is similar to the worst American style.

Doesn't Fox News have a particular political slant, whereas Paxman is pretty aggressive with everyone.

I'm speaking more to the style of an "interview". Which is that the conclusion is predetermined and the engagement is a setup. The use of the video-call "straight-talker rational counterpoint" is absolutely cliche in these sorts of things. Scoble wasn't allowed to get barely a point in, but instead this was just a "FUD about Google Glass, and here's Scoble to sit in to try to pretend that this is a conversation".

It is literally garbage news. He has absolutely no interest in actually discussing anything.

"allowed"? Paxman doesn't control the mic. Scoble argued badly. I'm not agreeing with Paxman. I suspect Paxman always argues the counter point irrelevant of his opinion - that's his job. If you choose to be interviewed by Paxman you better be able to hold an argument. It's not the Jonathan Ross show.

Very right wing pundits running their shows with a couple of liberals mixed in, but their actual reporting staff is fairly "just say the facts".

All US news networks have a particular political slant.

The host is (well, was) a journalist. His mission is to ask searching questions. Scoble was being ridiculous and Paxman pointed it out to him.

Google is an advertising company, everything they do is about advertising. Google Glass is not a computing platform it is at worst a ludicrous vanity project and at best a proposed vehicle for selling advertising space.

I don't see it that way. Scoble fared quite well, but Paxman always interrupted him after a few seconds for no particular reason, so Robert basically wasn't allowed to explain himself properly.

In my opinion, Glass is an useful device, which also helps google to collect more personal data about the user wearing them. I don't see anything inherently "ludicrous" about it.

Scoble - enthusiastic about everything, always all-in, naive, friendly, innocent, perfect teeth, health obsessed self-publicist

Paxman - cynical, jaded, sarcastic, hates politicians for a living, lives on tea, coffee and cereal*

This is like the cross-Atlantic friendship society! Talk about wheeling out your national stereotypes. Well done BBC. Again.

* may not be true, but he looks like it

Why exactly do you consider Robert to be "naive"?

To be perfectly frank it was a throwaway comment - I was being facetious.

I don't consider accusing someone of naivete to be particularly pejorative but if you are offended on his behalf, I suppose I would qualify the comment by saying he strikes me as the kind of bloke that would pay full price at a market stall rather than haggling. As do lots of Americans :-)

Paxman's 'grilling' is as much an opportunity as it is a challenge to the interviewee. Dismissing it as an obnoxious, premeditated takedown underestimates Paxman's skill and as an interviewer. It's also a well known shtick of his.

It's only an "opportunity" if he stops interrupting you long enough to answer him.

Paxman had no interest in Google's little gimmick, used the segment for some amusement, prodding the giddy enthusiast.

Actually, Jeremy Paxman is usually a lot more obnoxious ... and a lot more effective at discomfiting, unbalancing, and pushing his guests on to the defensive. I was looking forward to him really dig the knife in and wiggle it around a bit, instead, all we got was a couple of half-hearted insults. Almost a wet and sloppy love-in by the normal Paxman standards.

This was the most awkward interview I've seen in a while...

Real journalists put people on the spot.

Their (the subjects) feelings dont matter. Go watch some 60 minutes Mike Wallace interviews.

If they can charm their way through the interview they win. If they cant well then we can all think about that.

But dont for one second think that a real journalists ideal should be to play host to technology bozos.

If being polite were a journalistic trait Nixon would still be in office.

Yes, but how would they get their next interview?!

Rock the boat too hard and suddenly you're outside the circle of trust. Enough talking heads out there kiss ass to the point that press releases posing as journalism rule the day.

But hey, at least you'll be on the guest list for the next Apple event!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com