Maybe I'm the old fart here but we've seen how rude people can be when they have a smartphone and they can't stop touching it for ten minutes to talk with someone. If you're in an environment where you never have to talk with anybody, I can see Glass being like an ultra-smartphone that you can access all the time without breaking workflow.
But the problem with people and their smartphones is that they react instantly when it buzzes - the phone becomes the master. Which means the user is suddenly distracted, touching it, thinking about that other communication. And it's even worse when the other communication is asynchronous like a text or email and the user can safely NOT LOOK AT IT until they're done with the current face-to-face conversation happening right now.
When you walk up to the checkstand, the checker feels like you're being rude if you sit there talking on the phone. Maybe you think you can handle your end of the transaction without acknowledging the checker, but from the checker's perspective you're treating them like a servant or even an object, damaging their feelings of self-worth. You want people to treat you like a person and not be totally rude: likewise, everyone else wants the same thing. If you walk up wearing smart glasses, your pupils dilated like an addict, your eyes constantly shifting like there's a fly buzzing around, your reactions constantly interrupted, missing what people around you are saying, taking longer to complete the transaction and insulting the checker, all because you had to keep an eye on your inbox - that's a rude user.
There are people out there who are not rude smartphone users. You can tell because it doesn't seem like they own a smartphone. With smart glasses being more easily-accessed than phones and the user learning to employ them as an afterthought, I think we'll see fewer people able to use them without being rude users.
As for the camera, would you be at all perturbed if I sat down to dinner and pulled out a steadicam, taking closeup facial video and audio of the entire time we were together? I sure as motherfucking hell would. I've seen someone wearing smart glasses at a club. My policy is to avoid the wearer, and if they're someone I need to deal with in person or at the same table I'll ask them to take off the Glass and turn it off. If they won't, I leave.
"But Leo," pointlessly gibber after slithering from your moist crawlspace, "you can tell when Glass isn't recording." Yeah, and nobody ever downloaded an app to make their smartphone behave differently.
"But Leo," more vapid attempts at argument slip from your swollen, frothing lips, "they're just glasses. People should be able to wear them whenever and wherever they want." These things have a list of features and they just masquerade as glasses. Again, steadicam with internet access.
Depending on your jurisdiction there are plenty of things you can't just walk around town wearing. For example, open carry of firearms is illegal in Washington, although I've heard it's different in other states. And you can't just wander around with a
trenchcoat and a big-ass sword. The idea is, even if you aren't violating someone else's rights, you make people pretty damn nervous and you show at least some intent to use the things you choose to carry with you. There are some laws floating around in WA and CA regarding minors not being allowed to have spray paint - again, not because possession of spray paint is a problem, but because they might use it for graffiti. So it could be argued that holding out a smartphone which may or may not be recording could be seen as (1) an indication that the user prepared to record that day by equipping himself with the device, and (2) that a reasonable bystander may feel as though he might perform some recording.
Dunno about you, but in Washington , California, and around a dozen other states, it's unlawful to audiorecord someone without their consent. As in, they can sue you for the cash monies.
Because there exists a crime that can be committed, and a device than can be committing it, and no way to tell whether the device is currently employed to commit that crime, but that users of the device commonly perform that activity, I see no difference between Glass and a handgun or spray paint as it relates to open carry.
On a more practical note, it's more than a little naive to walk around with $1500 worth of fragile, annoying tech strapped to your face, which if removed also deprives you of whatever corrective lenses you had spent extra to install. And it looks like shit, and it makes you have a shit-eating smug expression on your face while wearing it. That plus the social rift it creates should hopefully kill this turd in its early-adoption stage.
"But Leo," you persist in failing to make a point, "this is going to happen whether you like it or not." Not necessarily. Remember when Dick Tracey had a video watch and everyone hoped they could have one some day? And instead we skipped watches and went straight to smartphones, with a few dumb-looking bumps in the road? Why would someone want a low-feature device on their wrist when they have a smartphone? Sure some units sell to people who just
have to check their email while jogging, but it could just fail to achieve traction.
I'm not holding my breath, though. If you tell the average American there's a new way to annoy everyone around him and show off a $1500 status symbol you'll sell as many as your Chinese factory can produce.
What we need to turn the tide are a huge number of false news stories about people getting punched in the face for wearing a Glass, and that the warranty doesn't cover damage from "roughhousing". Make people afraid to spend the money to buy them. Reduce the profitability, perhaps they'll take longer to catch on.
At this point, in all things in general, I'm just hoping the world doesn't turn completely to shit during my lifetime.
Author
Topic: Google Glass (Read 4364 times)