
Google on Glass Backlash: 'Messy' But Worth It - ossama
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/chris-dale-interview-google-glass,news-19159.html
======
deciplex
>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.

~~~
cma
This is a major reading comprehension fail on your part.

~~~
deciplex
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.

------
pash
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.)

~~~
cseelus
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.

~~~
throwaway271828
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.

~~~
MichaelGG
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.

~~~
harlanlewis
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...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/perv-utopia-light-on-macbook-
webcams-can-be-bypassed/)

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

~~~
mehwoot
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.

------
nerdy
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.

~~~
Kiro
> 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.

~~~
clarky07
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.

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

------
hyp0
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).

~~~
fixermark
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.

~~~
hyp0
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.

------
vacri
_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.

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

