
The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images - nextstep
http://www.robinsloan.com/note/pictures-and-vision/index.html
======
51Cards
"Google is getting good, really good, at building things that see the world
around them and actually understand what they’re seeing."

That statement spells it for me. With Google I see research, I see pushing
tech boundaries and hardware experiments, I see new ways to interpret the
world. With Facebook I see a huge lump of data but nothing really too
groundbreaking. I don't deny Facebook's momentum... it's huge and it's
valuable... but is it future proof? Are they thriving on momentum alone?

Which wins the race? Dunno yet. Maybe it's just not the same race.

~~~
ajross
There's a lot of truth to this (though I'm generally a big skeptic when people
talk about "research" in the abstract; and I remain genunienly "WTF are they
thinking!?" about Glass).

Google tries stuff, fails a lot, and stumbles on as many successes as they
engineer.

Facebook has executed really well on their core stuff, but... what else? I
mean, they've been on a huge hiring binge now for four years. What do they
have to show for all that talent? It seems like a big waste to society if
nothing else.

~~~
taligent
Being able to connect with people from around the world and share content is
not a big waste to society.

~~~
dvdhsu
> _Being able to connect with people from around the world and share content
> is not a big waste to society._

That's correct. However, the ability to "connect with people from around the
world and share content" is, as your parent post notes, is Facebook's "core"
functionality. What does Facebook have to show for the engineers they've hired
this year, engineers they've hired last year? Are read receipts on Facebook
chat more beneficial to "society" than other endeavors the engineers could be
working on instead?

~~~
taligent
When Google changes its icons for special occasions is that more beneficial to
"society" than other things they could be working. Is ANYTHING people do
really the best they could do for society.

I just don't understand why you are holding Facebook to some arbitrary
standard.

~~~
JAlexoid
Actually, Google Doodles educate the society at large about people that made a
difference in this world. So yes, work on Google Doodles is beneficial to
society.

------
dkarl
Facebook as a photo sharing app is a fascinating example of the service being
generic and the context for the service being the main focus of competition. A
bar sells drinks, but providing a competitive lineup of drinks is much easier
than providing a competitive context in which to consume them. Coffee shops
sell coffee and wifi, but they compete against each other as contexts within
which to consume coffee and wifi. As a photo sharing app, what distinguishes
Facebook from its competitors is the context it provides.

The context is nothing by itself, of course, and this is what is rarely
mentioned about social networking. A bar without drinks would be dry and
boring: a Boys and Girls Club for adults. Similarly, the essential, defining
factor of social networking -- the network, the web of connections between
people -- is lame and reductive by itself. But it's the perfect context in
which to share photos.

Social networking is also a good context for non one-on-one communication.
(For one-on-one communication, it offers nothing except a convenient way to
initiate a conversation with other Facebook users, a small advantage that
can't make up for the fact that it isn't as universal as e-mail or texting.)

I suspect the growth of Facebook as measured by users and usage will depend on
discovering other services for which social networking is the perfect context.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
>a small advantage that can't make up for the fact that it isn't as universal
as e-mail or texting

Well, I'm a teenager, and sadly Facebook is far more universal as a means of
contact than texting or e-mail, personally. I don't have the email addresses
or phone numbers of most of the people I know (often because I don't know them
well enough), but I do have them friended on Facebook.

~~~
dkarl
By sheer numbers I may have more Facebook friends than phone numbers or
emails, but a significant proportion of the people I communicate with
regularly aren't on Facebook anymore or never were. So I agree that Facebook
is more inclusive in the sense that people friend a lot more people on
Facebook than they share their email address and phone number with, but when
it comes to real friends and family, I can reach all of them through email or
texting but only some of them through Facebook.

------
mrkmcknz
I agree.

I made the argument only this weekend with a family member that technology
companies come and go and tend to be cyclic. However, Google is here to stay.
They might be search/advertising at the minute but those guys are really
taking crazy problems head on and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Google had
a breakthrough product in 5years with Cars.

We can all criticize Google+, but Google is one of those companies that I look
at and stand in awe of day after day.

------
gfosco
It is unfortunate they are both scary companies. They both know too much about
their users, and their users connections.

Even if you don't have a Facebook account, there is probably still some
evidence of you in their system. Unlike Facebook, it would be pretty hard to
not use Google at all, but it's at least possible to use their services and
remain unidentified.

Photos are over-rated, but tell that to the ~500 million people stalking each
other on Facebook. Glass is an incredible vision into the future of computing,
or a chilling vision of the future where there is no disconnecting from the
web of surveillance.

~~~
eitally
The fact of the matter is that most people are less concerned about personal
privacy and data security than they are maintaining social relationships, so
while I don't disagree with your premise I would argue that your point is
fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I fully expect we'll end
up with a few competing Skynets in the next couple of decades, but the best we
can hope for is that their overlords are reasonable people. Imho, trying to
avoid this is a fool's errand; we're better off educating people and creating
peripheral controls to help guide the megaliths into an agreeable position.

~~~
imd
Surely that's not the best we can hope for—or work for. It is not out of the
realm of possibility that distributed social networks, like email or Diaspora,
can gain popularity. But I don't know how to make that appealing to average
people.

~~~
fryguy
If your concern is that a single entity is going to have your information,
then Diaspora wouldn't help you anyways, as long as at least one of your
friends is using a federated service that is a majority service (like
blogger).

------
dxbydt
to gauge marginal positive externalities, invert the principal component & see
what remains.

as an example - suppose you wake up tomorrow and google search stops working.
never mind why - some random bug impossible to figure out, so it just stops
working. Then what are the positive externalities that remain ? Well, gmail.
youtube. android. gdrive. maps. picasa. blogger. reader. googledocs.
googlecheckout. etc etc etc... and that's not counting a single api /
framework / language( gwt, go , dart, chromium, etc etc...)

now suppose you wake up tomorrow and facebok stops working. Then what are the
positive externalities that remain ? Well, ???

~~~
confluence
Reminds me of a Charlie Munger quote:

 _that to get closer to the right answer, scholars should "invert, always
invert."_

You have a strong point there. Most top 100 websites I see are just _frontends
to databases_.

I kid you not.

Their competitive advantage is proprietary data holding and network effects to
get more data.

    
    
      Google - search + database frontend.
    
      Facebook - database frontend.
    
      YouTube - database frontend.
    
      Yahoo! - search + database frontend.
    
      Baidu.com - search + database frontend.
    
      Wikipedia - database frontend.
    
      live.com - database frontend.
    
      Twitter.com - database frontend.
    
      QQ.COM - database frontend.
    
      Amazon.com - database frontend.
    

Most of the stuff is just a front end to a database.

Their positive marginal benefit derives from holding that data, using it as
leverage to get more data, and then serving it back to their users in a tight
loop.

~~~
mkinsella
Interesting point. However, I'll disagree with Amazon.com. Purchasing real
world products is much more than just a database frontend.

~~~
confluence
If you're talking about warehousing/logistics - that is true.

However they only did it because they had to reduce costs and simplify
processing. I'm pretty sure Amazon would be much happier to just dropship by
making an API call to third party logistics - which is essentially an
inventory database from Amazon's point of view - _but they are just too big
now_.

I think they still do that with long tail items (don't store, but use third
party logistics with an API call).

~~~
katbyte
Would not having a 3rd party handle the logistics cut into their profit
margins? I would assume because they do it in house and at such a large scale
they save money vs hiring a 3rd party that would want their own cut raising
logistic costs.

~~~
confluence
Yes. They did that at the beginning, but since they scaled up they have
brought a lot of it in house.

I was addressing the fact that even though they did logistics/warehousing, I
still believe them to be a database frontend (inventory/customer/credit
cards), and I disagree with the above statement:

> _However, I'll disagree with Amazon.com. Purchasing real world products is
> much more than just a database frontend._

------
rjv
I agree that all of the Google X projects of today will ultimately be what
defines Google tomorrow. The fact that they have the guts to tackle projects
that are incredibly risky for a business but meaningful for humanity is a
major reason I'm happy to use their products. I love the geek factor.

~~~
Symmetry
I'm not sure it's that risky for them. Google tends to try a bunch of
different stuff, but doesn't seem too shy about cuttings its losses and
failing reasonably fast when needed.

~~~
ocirion
What happens when they fail one too many times and the seemingly endless
supply of R&D money runs out?

------
JonnieCache
Every day I become a little more scared I will live my adulthood in an episode
of this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWN9WEU2NP8>

EDIT: I see it has been mentioned downthread. Charlie Brooker is indeed a
genius.

------
InclinedPlane
Two things:

Both facebook and google are playing catchup on social. Facebook with
monetization, google with popularity. This leaves them wide open to disruption
from companies that nail the fundamentals from the get go and bring
significant value-add to the table.

Second, both companies view users like cattle. Just headcount to convert to
dollars.

Overall my hunch is that there's a 50/50 chance that neither google nor
faceebook will be king of social in 2020. There's a lot of potential for
disruption right now and both of these companies are so focused on each other
I doubt they'd even notice a successful upstart until it was too late. The
real risk to both, I think, is small companies which don't have billion dollar
obligations on their backs already.

~~~
mangoman
While I agree that both Facebook and Google have those respective problems, I
think social is an area where user base is not easily portable. It would be
tough to convert all the moms and dads to switch from Facebook to another
platform...It was difficult enough to get them on Facebook.

------
maked00
Some trust fund kid spouting off, blah blah blah.

Farcebook is of grannies and prole working moms.

Most of farcebook's income is from games. The rest is just the internet with
training wheels for morons, just like AOL was a few years ago, and we all know
how well that worked out.

The Google glasses thing is beyond stupid. Any fool can stream video from a
strap on mini cam hat, have been able to for years. Ever wonder why that has
not caught on?

Nice try at topicality and posing as someone in the know.

------
SkyMarshal
For anyone who didn't rtfa, here's a cool link of Sebastian Thrun
demonstrating Project Glass on Charlie Rose:

<http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12321>

~~~
gcb
i did read the article, clicked to the interview link, saw only a picture and
left.

now i saw your comment, clicked the link and was about to dismiss the page a
second time thinking all it had was a silly image when i finally decided to
click it.

so much for usability. how difficult it is to add a "play" triangle to video?

~~~
saraid216
Charlie Rose, despite his quality as an interviewer, is still part of "Old
Media" and their crotchety inability to get "New Media". I don't mean Rose
specifically, but the people he's paid by.

Also, I sound completely stupid in that paragraph but I can't figure out how
to say it better. :P

------
albertzeyer
Google needs to have some sort of brain interface to project glass. I.e.
control it via your mind.

The speaking out loud is distracting. It wont work. It's too complicated. And
nobody wants to talk with his glasses (like noone wants to talk to Siri in
public). People will not use it.

~~~
saraid216
None of the demos I've seen have involved any speaking. They've involved
tapping something and what might be eye tracking or head movements, but all
the speaking was pretty obviously superfluous.

------
joelrunyon
It seems that Google's products have future utility to them that seems to be
lacking from FB.

Facebook is focused on sharing. That can be an action, but until the action is
focused, it doesn't seem to be useful (other than as a time-suck of course).

~~~
taligent
I fail to see how photos which provide pleasure, foster relationships,
enlighten and educate is not useful but a camera you wear on your head is.

~~~
joelrunyon
The camera is a prototype for the direction they're headed. Driverless cars
and glasses which provide information about objects you look certainly have
more utility than a "camera you wear on your head."

------
Steko
Ultimately he's making a pretty big claim about Google's future here that
isn't grounded in reality. This is the same sort of talk that crowned
Microsoft the tablet king over a decade ago while reality waited for Apple to
_actually build a consumer viable version_.

Whether it's the usual suspects like Google, MS and Apple who we know are
already spending R&D here or a new entrant like Instagram which came out of
nowhere with a handful of user friendly features, or some China anointed
alternative it should be obvious that it's way to early to start counting
chickens.

~~~
robinsloan
Author here: You're right that it's a big claim, and I think it requires a lot
of imagination & even some suspension of disbelief. It's safer to be
skeptical.

But specifically re: competition of all shapes & sizes, I do think that two of
Google's long-term investments give it a pretty strong position:

1\. Google Maps & Street View, which together comprise an amazingly detailed
model of the real world. There are alternatives like OpenStreetMap of course,
but there's a lot more going on in those products than just navigation.

2\. The technology embedded in the self-driving car. I mean, a system that can
interpret a live feed of the chaotic world around it and make important
decisions based on what it sees? It doesn't feel to me like you can Instagram
your way into that capability. (But, I don't know: maybe it's more commodified
than I realize.)

~~~
apu
To lend some credence to these claims: other than the well-known Sebastian
Thrun, Google also has at least a _dozen_ world-class computer vision
researchers working on a variety of different products, from Maps to the self-
driving car to Goggles and others. This is some serious fire power, and in so
far as the technical problems are unsolved (which they mostly are right now),
no other company can touch them in the near future.

Of course, there is always the important step of making something that
consumers will use, but that's only possible if the technical problems are
solved first. And perhaps Google is learning how to make more consumer-
friendly things...

~~~
cdavid
I don't have numbers to back it up, but I would gather that at least MS has as
many if not more world class researchers in those fields.

------
sliverstorm
I don't think Google Glass is about taking photos (or videos) of your life. If
anything, it makes the most sense to think of it as the next step to Google
Goggles, and halfway to a Google Goggles HUD.

------
loganlinn
As a moot sidenote, this story was submitted yesterday
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4038962> (yes, coincidently by me)

~~~
AsylumWarden
For me personally it was the title. For me, I am not as interested in
"pictures and vision" as I am interested in the ongoing dominance struggle
between Google and Facebook. Sensationalism, or at least a good teaser title,
wins the day for me I'm afraid. It is a good find though. Good luck next time!

------
brudgers
Here's the thing I see, Google has no meaningful history of monetizing things
like self driving cars or video glasses or anything else except for via
advertising. Yeah, they sell some web services, but that's a lot different
from going head to head with companies that know about manufacturing like
Toyota and BMW or those that know about consumer electronics like Samsung and
Sony.

I guess they could create an advertising sponsored self driving car or vision
glasses that pop up ads (ala Walter Williams recent novel "The Fourth Wall"
ISBN-13: 978-0316133395). But how is either going to be more profitable than
their current model given the fundamental retooling of their business which
would be required and the radically different cost structures associated with
making real stuff?

That's not to say Facebook is destined for significant innovation. As an
advertising platform, they may be Yahoo 2.0 over the long term - too
profitable from advertising to pivot and not growing fast enough to get love
from analysts.

~~~
hk_kh
Why stick to ads if you can sell / license software for cars?

It could both work from a manufacturer or a personal POV.

    
    
        Buy my car, it comes with Google.

~~~
philwelch
Hopefully they'll be smart enough to actually license the software. I half-
suspect they'd do something stupid, like open-source it on the assumption that
it would increase the demand for web advertising (since you could just use a
tablet or laptop during your commute instead of driving).

------
startupfounder
What is interesting is that we think of Facebook as a social networking
company, but they are mostly a hacker company whether it is hacking social
networks, photos, servers, phone, etc. They have a similar culture to Google
except coming at it from a DIY, teach yourself, pull it apart to put it back
together again better angle and not a academic PhD research angle.

Facebook is a global company and if they come out with a phone it is most
likely not going to be pointed at the US market alone. They will be developing
a phone aimed at the developing country markets where they have much of their
traction. My guess is that the phone will have a low price point so that it is
affordable to anyone in the world who wants it who currently doesn't have a
smartphone. This included with mobile payments is what Facebook is after, they
want to own the global mobile market.

------
tysont
I still think that the future of Facebook is data (not specifically picture
data, that's just one piece). Advances in hardware and cloud computing have
kick started an era where data mining and machine learning are pervasive in
every field from pharmaceutical research to banking to sports and everywhere
in between. Facebook is the single authoritative source for a whole bunch of
personal data. People have started thinking about the basic applications for
that data when it comes to things like online shopping (you're a 31 year old
white male with an 8 month old daughter who likes rock and roll, so you
probably want to buy diapers, zinfandel, and a radiohead album), but I think
that lots of new interesting applications will emerge over the next several
years that don't violate user privacy and will monetize well.

------
minalecs
when he talks of sharing vision he nailed what google glasses is going to be.
example:

[https://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147/posts/CGR7sCzm...](https://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147/posts/CGR7sCzmDD7)

Post of a video from a person jumping on a trampoline wearing the glasses.

------
guelo
I'm not sure I understand this article. What is it that he imagines actors and
athletes doing that they don't do with Twitter now? People hold up their
phones pretty close to their face when capturing photos and videos so it is
already the first person POV. And it is pretty easy to do, I'm sure it will be
harder taking pics with Glass than a phone, it is more flexible taking
pictures with your hands than your face. The only successful consumer head-
mounted cameras that I know of are the Go Pros which are used mainly for niche
action shots. If the main advantage of Glass is just that you can take
pictures in situations where both your hands are busy that does not seem like
the huge use-case that is going to take down Facebook.

~~~
fennecfoxen
He imagines that the feed from, oh, say, a baseball player? (football is too
violent) will, someday, be wearing one of these, and then you'll get to see
the game from their perspective while they're doing other things, and it'll be
awesome.

... I'll believe it's awesome, with copious amounts of editing. If you're just
watching it raw, it'll be disorienting and shaky and distracting. :P I'm also
dubious exactly what baseball team would bother to wear these things in the
general case. Presumably they would just be a distraction to the players.
Maybe someone like, oh, downhill skiiers would have a better time of things?

~~~
waterlesscloud
Go to youtube right now and watch any number of first person downhill skiing
videos. What does Glass add to that?

~~~
ori_b
Convenience

------
ocirion
Google has a huge revenue generating machine in search, and adwords. This
allows them the opportunity to spend massive amounts of money on a lot of
projects that will mostly fail. They're hoping, at some point, one or more of
these projects will turn profitable. But they're burning millions doing it.

The problem with this approach is that they end up neglecting their core
search product, which I don't think has evolved much in the past decade. If
someone else comes along and disrupts search, its goodbye Google.

------
jianshen
In short, the most important company in our lives will be the one that best
looks after our memories.

------
zerop
Despite of all innovation Google does, still past several years nearly 90% of
their profit comes from online ads.

------
Codhisattva
Google could have been the picture sharing site of choice with Picasa but for
it's broken paradigm.

------
systematical
The only reason I don't delete my facebook is because of the pictures...and im
not alone.

------
femto
I view Google as a simulation company. The end game will be a real time whole
earth simulation, with predictive power, and the associated opportunity for
massive profits in any field where being ahead of the competition is an
advantage.

------
thescorer
This guy is reaching with a few of his statements

------
jwallaceparker
re: Google Glasses

I can never wear a pair of glasses that has a 3G connection.

For better or for worse, I experience heightened ElectroSensitivity to the
point where a 3G device that's operating within a few feet of me gives me a
headache.

Most mobile carriers are already starting to deprecate their 2G networks.

Wearable wireless devices like Google Glasses will be a hazard for me, and
many others.

Within the next few years, I won't even be able to use a cell phone.

~~~
ori_b
I find that hard to believe. Have a friend put a box beside you. Ask him to
flip a coin every day for a week. If it comes up heads, he will put a 3g phone
in that box. Otherwise, it should be empty.

I will bet you that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

~~~
jwallaceparker
And why would make that up?

I've done experiments like that plenty of times to prove it to people. I can
tell whether my iPhone is in 2G or 3G mode with my eyes closed.

It's well-documented. Search for "ElectroSensitivity."

Phones with a high SAR value cause headaches for a subset of the population -
I'm one of them.

------
chintan
Old Google = GoogleX (try outrageous things, see what sticks)

Current Google = Google+ (a beautiful bouquet of socially unified product
experience)

Future Google = ??

~~~
duaneb
GoogleX is still there.

------
gcb
Glass will be google's newton pad.

a new world promise, but in reality totally uncool and only used by a few san
francisco hippies-yuppies. And then forgotten.

With a chance of a decade later becoming a game changer.

~~~
swalsh
Sir I challenge you to a bet, $100 to our respective favorite charities.

In my opinion Google Glass is set to be a game changer from the start. I wager
that when google glass is launched, it will be a cultural icon no more than
1.5 years later.

It's clear WHY google needs glass. Owning the channel between my eyes and the
world is a huge potential pot of money. Targeted ads have a lot of potential
to disrupt the ad space, and if facebook ever decides to make their own ad
network (such as Google's ad sense) competition will be fierce. Google glass
is a really good way to increase their competitive advantage, and cement their
position in the advertising arena.

Additionally, of the companies that would be interested in making a product
like google glass (facebook, microsoft, IBM etc) Google probably has the best
mix of engineers to do it. I've always said that Google is an AI company
first. Well a huge part of AI is machine vision, and a large part of
successfully monetizing google glass is machine vision. Additionally, with
street view, and other aggressive initiatives Google is in one of the best
positions to actually understand what and where the world you are looking at.
Finally, while google has proven in the past they are weak as a hardware
company (nexus 1) they have demonstrated they are capable of bringing a
consumer product to the mass market... though perhaps maybe not enough to make
it anything less then a wild card.

Finally the last point is one of consumer adoption. The newton pad was not
successful in part because the hardware was premature. But I would speculate
it was also in part because consumers weren't at the point of understanding
the value. The hardware in Google glass is unknown at this point, and
potentially could under-deliver... and that will cause it to be a newton.. but
for the reasons i said above I think Google is capable of delivering a quality
product. However consumer readiness will not be an issue. 1 billion people are
already on Facebook. Social interaction through technology is accepted today
more then ever before. Using smartphones in public is not only accepted, its
normal. Years ago using a PDA might have made you look like a yuppie, but
today no one would notice.

~~~
gcb
1\. i don't believe in paying third party charity

2\. you think all that for the same reason I also think all that: Wishful
thinking... but deep inside i can see the truth. we are the hippies-yuppies
who will buy it :)

put yourself on the shoes of people hearing about the newton back then:
handwriting recognition!! how wouldn't want that instead of a 3x4 phone
keyboard? Turned out 99.9% prefered T9. it's all the same. we are thinking as
if the implementation and day-to-day use would be perfect on such a new
concept on the first try. well, odds are it wont. but in one year can get back
to it and see if my money goes to one of your charities or if your money will
buy me something shinny (that's one bet i'd like to lose...)

~~~
dandelany
So wait, you're morally against giving money to a charity but you're perfectly
okay with betting his charity against your free money? Honestly curious.

Also - implementation and day-to-day use don't have to be _perfect_ for it to
be a game-changer/overnight success/cultural icon. As evidenced by... Well,
pretty much every piece of successful consumer electronics ever made that has
gone through multiple generations/revisions.

~~~
gcb
yes, I AM against. but if he wins the bet, my money goes to it since for me to
lose means he won. as it seems to be what he's into.

and yes. they work like that. the discussion is if it will happen in 1 year as
he says or in 10-15 years as history says.

see what i did there? i put my words as valid as "history". hah. clever.

------
excuse-me
"Imagine actors and athletes doing what they do today on Twitter—sharing their
adventures from a first-person POV—except doing it with Glass."

Imagine having to click on a dozen copyright notices and pay for each image
you see on Google/Facebook because the image they just took is owned by $ACTOR
in europe, but $STUDIO in USA and $AGENCY in Japan but a blank page because
Facebook doesn't have a right to use it in Canada.

~~~
27182818284
Why is this different than say Instagram by a celeb which happens all the
time?

~~~
excuse-me
People don't "follow" images on Instagram by actors - the google glasses
example is proposing a twitter-like system where users follow an actor's view
live.

Imagine a system where Napster had a musician bugged and could stream what
they were playing in the studio - think there might be right's issues ?

------
shpoonj
Naive question:

The author says image views are a subset of page views. Is this accurate when
the photos are shown in a light box capable of cycling through thousands of
photos without leaving the initial page?

~~~
r0s
Good question, I'd like to know the answer too. Javascript abstracts the whole
theory of a "webpage" but I'm sure the image viewer reports back metrics and
they have some system to track it all. In the end I'd guess it's probably
treated similarly for marketing purposes.

------
h84ru3a
Google is really good at seamlessly integrating the companies they acquire to
give the appearance to users that Google develops much more than they actually
do. The Google brand becomes synonymous with development that they actually
did not themselves do.

------
trebuch3t
Smart. Facebook nailed photos and now they need to nail mobile. No wonder they
bought Instagram.

------
nodawg
Saw this on reddit yesterday. Hacker News is the new Digg.

------
swayfm
Show me google glass embedded in a pair of contact lenses, and then we'll
talk.

------
gouranga
That google glass picture scares the fuck out of me. It instantly devalues
humanity and values voyeurism and narcissism over family.

If this becomes the norm, I'm going all Luddite.

I think it will also become: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma8NbpCvSwo>

~~~
dfxm12
Can you elaborate how a picture taken with a camera you wear like glasses
"devalues humanity and values voyeurism and narcissism over family" compared
to a picture taken with a more (I guess) traditional camera?

~~~
pessimizer
A camera is alienating, and a camera that you constantly wear is even more
alienating; like a locked cell is more imprisoning than a locked country.

Recommendation:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_%28TV_series%29#3...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_%28TV_series%29#3._.22The_Entire_History_of_You.22)

~~~
gouranga
+1 for black mirror and well anything by Charlie brooker. Definitely worth
watching!

