21–30 of 157 posts
Can you imagine having a conversation with someone that's wearing this thing You mean like someone with, well, glasses?
No. The implication of the quote is that, unlike traditional glasses, Google Glass will distract the wearer .
Nexus 7 sale estimates are 4.6 million. Fine, so they haven't ousted Apple yet, but it's by no means a "complete failure". I like mine :)
That seems to be the only "argument" in the article. The others seem to be arguments from personal incredulity.
http://news.yahoo.com/nexus-7-sales-soared-2012-still-fell-s...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#Perso...
>Google has never had a successful product that people pay for. Pretty sure people pay for AdWords.
This needed to be said. The social implications of this device are indeed ridiculous. Most insightful: "Can you imagine having a conversation with someone that's wearing this thing? I'd feel like they aren't even paying attention." I already detest people wearing bluetooth headsets. They give off the wrong social cues, they were never really accepted as fashion, and other than government-mandated hands-free use in ca…
This needed to be said. The social implications of this device are indeed ridiculous. Most insightful: "Can you imagine having a conversation with someone that's wearing this thing? I'd feel like they aren't even paying attention." I already detest people wearing bluetooth headsets. They give off the wrong social cues, they were never really accepted as fashion, and other than government-mandated hands-free use in ca…
So, low-quality earbuds are the problem, here, right? I mean, you're talking about listening to other people talking softly on public transportation, and you say the conversation is the problem? Do you similarly hate people who use cellphones or talk with friends on the bus? Should every bus and train be all quiet car, all the time? :)
It's funny: I haven't seen a lot of objections to Glass based on how poorly it seems likely to work[1] (which, you know, I'm hopeful, but wearables haven't caught on, yet...). Instead, objections seem to focus on two aspects:
1. Oh, noes, people can snoop on me! Well, first, they already could, and second, there's literally nothing that can be done except to make sousveillance tech illegal, which will ensure that we only have surveillance.
2. Oh, noes, I can snoop on people! That's an objection that the article seems to be making, here. I have a solution: don't pay attention.
[1] Well, Nick says "impractical", but I didn't see any examples of that unless fashion faux pas are impractical.
Disruptive products always come with harsh criticism, mockery. I have no idea if this product will gain any traction, maybe the next one, or maybe it will turn like the Segway. But the arguments in this article are exactly like the arguments thrown at Apple when they lauched the iPhone : it's too expensive, there is no keyboard... > Puke. I find Glass to be ugly, impractical and completely ridiculous. It's pretty goo…
This needed to be said. The social implications of this device are indeed ridiculous. Most insightful: "Can you imagine having a conversation with someone that's wearing this thing? I'd feel like they aren't even paying attention." I already detest people wearing bluetooth headsets. They give off the wrong social cues, they were never really accepted as fashion, and other than government-mandated hands-free use in ca…
Making eye contact is the most important part of in-person social interaction, it gives a number of passive and active clues as to the persons intent and emotions. As neither of us have had any interaction with someone wearing Glass we are both hypothesising, yet I would suggest the number 1 goal was to allow maintaining eye contact when wearing it, and then there were probably some constraints that lead the rest of…
But it does greatly affect it. Even talking on the phone has this element of distraction to it—my dad notices this especially. If I start messing around on the computer in the middle of a phone conversation, he can tell immediately and starts asking me what I'm doing on the computer. Good conversation starter, but it didn't help that I was distracted in the first place.
What happens when I get a notification on my Glass when talking to someone in person? What if a text message comes up and I start reading it. What if a random restaurant notification comes up (an ad? Surely not!). There are any number of things this device adds to conversation, while you're holding eye contact. That eye contact becomes not only eye contact, but unknown eye contact. It becomes more disconnected, even in person.
What would you do if someone took out their phone and started reading their messages while you were trying to talk to them? How is that different from Glass? Can Glass tell when you're having a conversation? Maybe it can, but how do we know?
It complexifies conversation. Personally, I don't believe that will be socially accepted. But you're right, we don't know yet. A lot of this is speculation, and of course the device will be refined and the interactions will be honed as time goes on.
That just brings up another point: the product, its use, and how it fits into everyday life are not well defined. It's beginning from an experimental engineering standpoint. More on a fundamental design level, I think that origin has a lower likelihood of leading to the right type of product.
I love how he formed such strong opinions without ever experiencing it or anything like it. And then says "Puke" about an article from someone that actually DID use it. Not to mention that he clearly didn't read the article that closely if he thinks that the only way to interact with Glass is to talk to it.
The rest of the article is easily predicted.