Google on Glass Backlash: 'Messy' But Worth It | Hacker News Reader

Google on Glass Backlash: 'Messy' But Worth It

tomsguide.com

35 pointsossama45 comments

>One of the unique things we are doing with Glass ... is that we are having this discussion very publicly. We, as a company, could very easily have taken this technology into a conference room, wrapped the conference room in tin foil and developed this over the course of two to three years and released it en masse and basically said, "You know what? Deal with it. The technology is ready, and here it is."

Wow. Just wow. The arrogance displayed here is staggering, to the point that it erodes my confidence that Glass will see much success. (I didn't have much confidence in it to begin with.) You can tell the possibility that Glass might just simply not catch on, hasn't so much as drifted into his conscious awareness. The idea that Google is doing everyone a favor with the Explorers program, so that everyone can get used to it, as opposed to doing this for the usual reason of not releasing a shitty product, appears to be something this guy actually believes.

I've heard that Google selects for arrogance to some degree in their hiring practices. Perhaps it's time to rethink that.

The rest of that response is:

"What we decided to do instead was have a living laboratory for a very public experiment. Is it messy? Sure. And are there are things that you couldn't predict? Absolutely. But there is all of this feedback that you get from these Explorers and these use cases. We cannot only bake the feedback into the product, but bake it into our policies."

I just can't square that with your interpretation. It's very clear he thinks that Google is running the Explorer program for the feedback they're getting, so they can use it to improve their product. Moreover, making a point of incorporating that feedback into their policies rather than just their product demonstrates that Google's position isn't anywhere near telling people to "get used to it". Which shouldn't be surprising - telling people to "Deal with it" was part of his description of the path they didn't follow.

Dealing with the public feedback is part of not releasing a shitty product, and that's a good thing for everyone. You make it sound like the Explorer program can only have one reason, public acclimation or design refinement, but not both, which is obviously nonsense. Overall, I see nothing to justify the cynical interpretation you've put forward here.

Further, your last paragraph defies belief. When I interned at Google, almost everyone I met seemed down-to-earth and humble, and I've never heard anything like your accusation. Citation is desperately needed.

This is a major reading comprehension fail on your part.

I don't think that it is, but rather that I didn't give the guy the benefit of doubt, and as someone else said my reading of it was overly cynical which I agree with. I still think he worded it poorly. To me, it sounded like he was suggesting that was an alternate, even equally viable, strategy for developing the product, and that it was the goodwill of his team and Google that led them to do the Explorer program. But, I don't think that's the case anymore.

Put a hinge on the camera and display module; flip it up towards the sky to turn Glass off. Down it's on, up it's off.

Give wearers a simple, clear way to communicate that they've turned Glass off when it's inappropriate to have it on and at least you'll ensure that Glassholes are a subset of assholes. (There's not much you can do about the assholes.)

I thing what people bugs most about Glass is the fear to be taped all the time without consent and without even noticing it. Glass should be clearly signaling when its filming/streaming via a hardwired LED or something, so that it is obvious when someone is filming and when not.

when you're recording something the light is turned on and it's very noticeable.

The light seems to turns on for a number of reasons, which makes it an unreliable indicator.

I watched a googled give a talk (on privacy) with his google glass on, the display lit up about 20 different times throughout his talk.

You can, of course, always remove/unwire the LED if you're that desperate to discretely film people.

It's not even just the fear of being taped.

But I imagine there would be a very strong correlation between those who wear Google Glass and those are technically astute. Which then leads you to think they would put that video on the internet somewhere.

A lot of people don't wan't their drunken, embarrassing moments on the internet. It can affect relationships, career, etc.

Since the video cameras were made, people have known that they're being taped. You know that almost all buildings have security cameras, or that they're being taped by a tourist, weather they know it or not. The public is just not seeing the full picture, I could honestly, before Glass came out, recorded people with a camcorder or security camera. Also... If people are worried about others seeing how they act in public, then they need to fix how they're acting. A picture can mean a thousand words, but a video be chapters of your life. Choose how you want to have your book written, don't make bad decisions.

Anecdotally, the Glass team had a large internal battle about exactly this: half of the team wanted a hardwired LED indicating when it was recording, the other half of the team didn't. Supposedly the debate grew so heated that it fractured the team completely, and the half that lost mostly transferred onto other Google X projects, like Loon.

That sounds silly,unless they were going to do a test of the LED in order to activate the camera. Otherwise people determined to record could just break the light. It's not like there isn't a ton of spy cams available anyways.

It's all about good intentions - assholes who want to record without permission will still exist, but the vast majority would not enable that hack, unless it was socially acceptable to do so.

I think the LED lost out because then it would look all too much like the Borg.

So what's gained by hardwiring an LED versus forcing it via software? The stuff I saw has a front light fairly clearly.

Hardwired LEDs for cameras are common, precisely to prevent what you describe. Laptop cameras have their own processors, memory, and software, and if the light doesn't turn on then the camera won't turn on.

This isn't just so others can know when your device is recording them, it's for you to know when your own device is recording you.

Of course, it can still be hacked. http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/perv-utopia-light-on...

What's to stop someone from just disabling the light? Can you not jam a pin in it or something?

Yes but if someone went to those lengths they could just use a hidden camera. My fear is not some very unlikely determined person secretly recording my conversation, my fear is giving every single person in the world an easy tool that they will use that can also secretly record conversations.

Hidden cameras exist, but there is very little reason to use one in everyday. But giving every single person a thing they have constantly that does this functionality is a real change. The linked article mentions how cameras were banned, but I still dislike cameras and if I see people with one in public taking photos I will avoid them. If those cameras were always out and always pointing at people I would feel very uneasy.

As far as I know (which is very little), you're right - disabling the ability to produce light doesn't disable the camera as long as the software thinks the light is on. There are likely hardware-only approaches but they may be prohibitively expensive for a feature no customer wants to pay for.

That's the big difference between designing a light for the owner's protection (who probably won't disable the light and will notice if it breaks) versus a light for the protection of others (who might not know to look for a light in the first place, especially once Glass evolves to look like regular glasses).

There's a laptop accessory market for physically blocking camera switches with state determined at glance. Wearable cameras may need to adopt a similar mechanical approach for today's social expectations, but putting switches on your face is somewhat at odds with designing away from the Glasshole Borg look.

This concept is useless because it relies on an honor system. It should be painfully obvious by now, that honor systems cannot be trusted to preserve privacy.

Google Glass is the Crystal Pepsi of the internet. It's only interesting in that it represents a definite violation of ordinary, common, everyday privacy, but stands out as one boundary that certain interested parties are determined to invade.

...uh no? If the camera is physically not pointed at you, it can't record you. It's clear and concise.

EDIT: My exact thought on this subject has been that the camera needs a mechanical shutter. But I'd say thinking of Glass like sunglasses is probably also the way to go - a way to "take it off" without having to take them off (i.e. like when you put your sunglasses on your heard to talk to someone indoors).

I think the failure of this idea starts with the assumption that it's perfectly reasonable to have a trigger-happy camera constantly at the ready, strapped to your forehead, "just in case" but "trust us because we swear we won't point it at you in your most compromised, yet entertaining moment" only everyone else.

This sounds exactly like the bygone panic over cameras on mobile phones.

But, ma'am, I swear these mirrors on my shoes aren't for looking up ladies skirts. I just have them because I'm in a gang and I need to check underneath my car for car bombs every morning.

It can still record sound, which may be just as significant in the right (or wrong) circumstances.

How's that different from someone who's holding a cellphone not taking photos of you?

Equally obnoxious and unnerving.

And yet lacking the insane, uninformed backlash that Glass is getting.

Because cell phones are discrete fashionable accessories that serve as status symbols displaying varying wealth and disposable income, while Google Glass is a lopsided glowing deformity on the side of your head.

I donno. Add some options for racing strips, a hello kitty theme, some godawful gold stipple (a Dalek fashion, but popular), or whatever, and suddenly people will love it.

Remember how popular the iMac (~1999) was when they started adding colors and patterns to the outside?

Cellphone cameras had the exact same backlash when they first started showing up.

Can we actually be serious here ? How many situations have you seen where someone is at a party constantly holding their phone in the air for hours on end. Never. And if someone was I am quite sure they would be treated equally as suspicious.

Google Glass is more akin to someone wearing a GoPro to a party the whole night. Not someone who pulls their phone out of the pocket for a minute or two.

You must not go to parties with bored people.

Glass is a cool idea but not much more. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should... it's a product made because it's a neat idea rather than one made for some certain utility or benefit. As far as I'm aware, the only thing it really adds beyond capabilities of a smartphone is the wearable camera-- in a package that's smaller, but uglier, more expensive and more likely to get you mugged/killed.

Can't help but wonder how many Glass users are smartphone-free, and if not, what meaningful benefit they see in using it.

> As far as I'm aware, the only thing it really adds beyond capabilities of a smartphone is the wearable camera

That's basically saying that smartwatches are equally useless. I can't speak for Google Glass but I'm really happy with my smartwatch and there is a lot of utility you can't get from a smartphone.

i personally find my pebble to be more useful than my glass as well. it's far more reasonable and easy to use on a daily basis.

On the one hand, the loathing reminds me of the early cellphone days... But it also reminds me of the Segway.

Simple solution: no camera.

Wearable displays have other great benefits - though input awkwardness might kill it (voice isn't good enough as the sole input).

Unfortunately, the camera is half the benefit.

I've seen some very clever augmented reality work with this system. There's some real power in the ability to take visual input from the environment, enhance it, and display it to the user in a more useful format. Most of the actually nifty uses for Glass are camera-related.

I agree the camera is a tremendous benefit. But it's problematic; and there are great benefits without it (half of them by your accountant - it's still a lot).

Specially, a phone/browser you don't have to take out of your pocket. A display that is light and unobtrusive. A form factor that has "headroom to shrink" - smartphone size is limited by having a usable display. But they are hard to read. So we have a trend towards bigger displays, which therefore are both more and less convenient, because of these conflicting benefits. Wearable displays resolve the conflict.

It's very hard, especially for an engineer, to give up fantastic benefits of a new technology. That's why I suspect Google cannot bring itself to drop the camera. In contrast, Apple has often foregone specific benefits for the sake of overall benefits (e.g. no 1080p phone resolution, for the sake of battery life). So I think Apple could bring itself to do this.

That depends on what you think the problem is.

Sure, if you think it's "people don't like Google Glass", ditching the camera is one option.

If, on the other hand, you think the problem is "people don't like being recorded when they don't know it", Glass is just a symptom. Even if Glass made recording super-obvious or ditched the camera entirely, someone would just make "Black Glass" that didn't or stick a tiny cameras in other things (watches? baseball caps? ...).

Personally, I think the real problem is the latter. All the excessive focus on Google Glass just distracts us from that. And that's unfortunate, because the real problem is much thornier than the Glass problem.

Behold, tiny cameras:

http://www.amazon.com/Eyewear-Sunglasses-Hidden-Camera-Recor...

And this is just the obvious crap you get for $50 off Amazon.

No single piece of technology has sparked as much interest, scrutiny and even ire as Google Glass

Except for things like the original iPhone, Tesla cars, and the like. Or, going back in history, things like 'television' and 'photography'. Yes, a ye olde television is useless without a television studio and transmitter, but Glass is equally useless without internet access or links to a smartphone.

Glass is an impressive bit of technological achievement, but come on, keep it in perspective.

Isn't that what they tacitly implied about G+? That didn't turn out so well...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com