
A 33-Year-Old NPR Story Convinced Me Google Glass Will Stop Looking So Dorky - sethbannon
http://www.onthemedia.org/story/google-glass-dorky/
======
resu_nimda
I am actually pretty shocked at the responses here on HN, of all places. Not
because, as technologists we should all automatically love any new technology,
but because, as technologists we should have perspective on its inexorable
march.

How many times have we laughed at definitive statements, pontificating on this
or that newfangled thing, that were proven to be wildly off-the-mark only a
few years later?

How many times have we facepalmed at the print media's desperate attempts to
combat or stave off digital publishing?

Whether it's Google Glass or something else, "invasive" wearable tech will be
utterly pedestrian in a decade or two. Similarly, privacy is going away, and
future generations won't care. You can already see it with the kids. It's just
the obvious extrapolation of computing technology, and it won't be stopped by
the old guard.

If you disagree, care to put our thoughts in a time capsule and see who looks
more foolish in 10 years?

~~~
gfodor
A lot of people who knew the iPhone and iPad were going to be huge also think
Glass is doomed for the consumer market.

Sometimes the way you look matters. See: the Segway. It's a threshold. Did
headphones really make you look as dorky as the Segway does to your
contemporaries? Doubtful. Does Glass? I think it comes close.

~~~
Avshalom
Segways did not fail because they made you look dorky. They failed because
they were an extremely expensive toy that didn't solve anyone's problems and
were bulky enough that they made new problems when people tried to use them.

~~~
baldfat
Segways solved problems:

Does your job require walking around on a flat service all day? Segway for
Mall Cops.

Do you want people who have a hard time walking for a few miles so they can do
a tourist tour? Segway for tourist.

That's about it from me.

~~~
iancarroll
Those markets are not large enough to sustain a product like the Segway.

~~~
bronsoja
If Segways are still being sold [0], doesn't that mean the market is big
enough to sustain the product?

0: [https://store.segway.com](https://store.segway.com)

------
aresant
I disagree that people will become comfortable with Google Glass - the primary
negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always
pointed at you (that may or may not be recording).

To which the analogy vs. headphones is not relevant.

I anticipate, however, that Google (or somebody) will find a way to make this
product largely invisible to anybody but the wearer in the near term future.

Through more discreet projection / camera placement, or future-tech
incorporation with a contact lens.

So for a company in the business of printing money, investing in BETAs at this
stage to understand UX, function, etc is wise.

~~~
tikhonj
And yet most people don't have that reaction to _pervasive_ CCTV. Which, in
some places, is virtually omnipresent and _constantly_ recording. "Smile,
you're on camera ☺"

And many people have no qualms sharing pretty much everything on Facebook and
the like.

I don't know which way it will really go, but it is really not obvious _a
priori_ that everyone is that concerned about privacy, or that society will
not adapt to make things like constant filming more acceptable.

~~~
wpietri
The difference for me is that we've learned that CCTV basically never has a
direct impact on our lives. I'm sure I'm caught on security cameras 20 times a
day for the last 10 years, but not one of those 73,000 recordings has ever
come to my attention or mattered at all.

The same isn't true of handheld cameras. When people take a picture of me, it
could go places, and I know that. If you're snapping pictures of people,
you'll get reactions.

Right now, people definitely treat Glass like a handheld camera. And I suspect
they will, at least up until the moment they start wearing one themselves.

~~~
jfoster
I thought your comment was going the other way. The same generally is true of
handheld cameras. Can you recall a situation where a stranger snapping a photo
that had you in it caused a problem for you?

~~~
probably_wrong
Here's such a case: a website [1] dedicated to taking pictures of girls in
public transport without asking for permission before nor after [2]. Quoting
from the opinion piece,

> “Well, when I saw that I was in a posted photo, it scared me… and then
> afterwards, blah! But maybe there isn’t the need to post these photos
> online… I feel like I’m in a catalog for rapists or other sick people. It
> was quite shocking…”

[1] [http://www.argentinaindependent.com/life-
style/thecity/chica...](http://www.argentinaindependent.com/life-
style/thecity/chicas-bondi-the-modern-flaneur/)

[2] [http://www.adiosbarbie.com/2012/05/21st-century-street-
haras...](http://www.adiosbarbie.com/2012/05/21st-century-street-harassment/)

~~~
jfoster
There are cases, but they are not the norm. CCTV has been abused too, but
abuses are also not the norm for CCTV, either.

------
rdl
Big difference IMO is that the Glass is worn, and even more, is worn on the
face, specifically around the eyes.

Remember how douchey the bluetooth headset people were? Very small by
comparison, and that was mostly hidden if you had long hair, or were viewed
directly from the front.

The Pebble is about the limit, which is why the wrist-computer thing is so
interesting, even though it doesn't provide a huge amount of new capability
for "heads up" computing vs. a vibrating smartphone. I'm mostly unwilling to
wear the "old" Pebble, but probably will wear Pebble Metal, and will
definitely wear Pebble 3.0 (if it improves by roughly the same amount; 1-4mm
slimmer would be nice).

Glass would be fine alone, or in a car, or in the field, but probably not
something I'd wear at dinner, or in a casual meeting (unless by using it I
were much more productive and useful).

The article seems to think wearing headphones in public is ok. It's fine when
you're sitting down avoiding people, but the kids wearing large, crappy
headphones in other environments (e.g. at meals) are kind of pathetic.

~~~
corresation
_Remember how douchey the bluetooth headset people were?_... _but the kids
wearing large, crappy headphones in other environments (e.g. at meals) are
kind of pathetic._

Isn't this really judgmental? Doesn't this say more about you than about them?

I'm completely serious. I do not judge people on the tools they use in their
life that is of no consequence to me. The same holds for Google Glass -- it is
somewhat perverse, if not an attempt at group bullying, however so many try to
get some sort of group disdain going about it.

The single credible complaint anyone has about Glass -- after you dig through
all of the noisy subjective blather -- is the privacy angle. It may be
defeatest but I think that ship has sailed, and we're absolutely surrounded by
things recording us (someone mentioned lapel mics, for instance, but of course
every smartphone around you might be audio recording. Video recording is often
more ubiquitous, but the "pretend you're using your phone" tactic is hardly
uncommon)

~~~
username223
> Isn't this really judgmental? Doesn't this say more about you than about
> them?

Not really. Bluedouches are so self-involved that they don't realize and/or
care how annoying it is for them to walk around in public (apparently) loudly
talking to themselves. Normally, we only excuse this behavior in
schizophrenics.

~~~
ewoodrich
Not as annoying as the self involved people who go around talking into a
plastic brick in public. Normally we only excuse schizophrenics of talking to
inanimate objects.

~~~
sendob
I have a bluetooth headset for making phone calls more safely with my older
car (not capable of interfacing directly with my phone), and I don't agree
with demonizing headset users, but the biggest issue that I personally found
was related to the fact that the headsets were hard to see. Making it unclear
when someone was talking on a call or to those around them. The headphones
with mics, I find them to be less of an issue because they are more visible
even though it would seem to present the same opportunities for confusion.

There was a time when vision correcting glasses were considered very strange I
would imagine, but they proved to be very useful and we become accustomed to
seeing them. What will be fun, I think, is as others have postulated wearable
tech becoming less apparent to the naked eye, so much so that the plastic
brick will be considered odd, and that one would WEAR vision correcting lenses
mounted in metal or plastic frames right on the face?!

~~~
aestra
>I have a bluetooth headset for making phone calls more safely with my older
car (not capable of interfacing directly with my phone),

You are certainly not being any safer. The act of engaging in a phone call is
what is distracting, not holding a device. Don't kid yourself.

[http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/12/aaa-study-
usi...](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/12/aaa-study-using-hands-
free-devices-distracts-drivers)

[http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0701/blcellphone70...](http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0701/blcellphone701.htm)

[http://www.alertdriving.com/home/fleet-alert-
magazine/north-...](http://www.alertdriving.com/home/fleet-alert-
magazine/north-america/majority-americans-wrongly-believe-hands-free-cell-
phones-are-safer-hand-held-devices)

[http://www.mindthesciencegap.org/2013/03/14/look-no-hands-
is...](http://www.mindthesciencegap.org/2013/03/14/look-no-hands-is-it-really-
safer-to-drive-hands-free/)

Further, nobody is talking about people who use these technologies in private,
they are talking about people who are using them in public.

------
tokenadult
The story reports that the Walkman changed people's opinions about wearing
headphones. (The kind of listening earpieces, even paired in a framework, used
with the Walkman I usually think of as "earphones," but I see that the
contemporary news story called them headphones, back in the day.) What I most
remember about the Walkman is that it liberated public places from boomboxes,
unaffectionately known as "ghetto blasters," which I used to hear all too
often when I was out in public as a student and as a recent university
graduate.

AFTER EDIT: And after thinking about this some more, and after pondering the
other comments kindly posted here, I think maybe the future of Google Glass
will depend in part on whether wearing Google Glass is seen as eliminating a
disgusting previous habit (like looking down at one's lap to text while
driving) or is seen as a new disgusting habit with no good purpose. I have no
idea what most people will think about this--I have still never seen anyone
with Google Glass on in my part of the country.

~~~
analog31
In my view, one thing about any wearable device is that people form an
impression of what you're doing with it. That's what makes it socially
acceptable or not in the long run.

Earphones / buds / blueteeth don't have unlimited social acceptance. If you're
talking to me while wearing headphones, I might ask you to take them off,
especially if you're one of my kids. If I see you wearing them while while
careening towards me on your bike, I might dive for cover. If I see someone
wearing them while communing with nature, I might think they're weird.

If any prediction is possible, I'd guess that Google Glasses will also gain
some sort of conditional social acceptance based on what they are capable of
being used for.

------
drcode
Headphones are STILL smug and alientating.

I wear them all the time because I like listening to music on the go. However,
I still think, objectively speaking, they are silly and off-putting. Just
because they are so common now doesn't mean we have to deny their intrinsic
nature.

~~~
chubot
Right, headphones still aren't appropriate in many situations. You can wear
them on the subway (although a pretty small minority of people do).

But try showing up to a meeting at work with headphones on. Or to a family
gathering. You would instinctively take them off immediately.

The presence of headphones is still a social cue, and the presence of Glass
will always be one too. It's not going to become just a neutral thing like
wearing eyeglasses.

------
gammarator
My speculation is that looking at someone wearing Glass messes with us on a
deep-seated, perceptual level. Direct eye contact is a huge part of how humans
communicate, and Glass interferes with that.

It's worse than eyeglasses or sunglasses, though, because it's asymmetric and
offset, so it seems (to me) to trigger some kind of "deformity" cue.

If it really is violating our evolutionary preferences for symmetric faces and
unobstructed eye contact, fashion won't be enough for it to catch on.

------
fizx
No one cares if you wear headphones. You're a jerk if you order coffee with
earbuds/bluetooth in. I've never seen _anyone_ flip up a Google Glass to the
top of their head to have a conversation, but if that was standard behavior,
Google Glass would be widely accepted.

The problem today as I see it isn't the camera ($diety knows tourists take
enough pictures of you in SF), its people (influenced by clueless Google
marketing) being smug and oblivious enough to keep the Glass on during normal
human interaction.

~~~
abvdasker
The idea of a google glass that can be temporarily disengaged (flipped up) is
a really interesting one. It seems like that gives the wearer more control
over where they would like to direct their attention. It also signals to
whoever they're dealing with that their attention is undivided.

This is probably the single biggest difference between headphones and google
glass. I wonder if the designers at google will figure that out.

------
TheZenPsycho
Past results do not guarantee future results. Behold the stack of counter-
example dorky looking technologies that _didn 't_ catch on.

The missing ingredient is cool and popular people have to be seen using the
technology, and make it look good while doing it.

------
zacinbusiness
I believe the idea that these technologies is alienating is false. There are
some people (such as myself) who simply do not wish to engage with their
fellow passengers on a train or airplane. So, if someone politely speaks to me
then I am forced to either a: engage with them (there's no harm in doing so,
but I simply don't want to), or b: come up with some sort of way out of the
conversation and hope to not appear rude (I don't wish to offend anyone, but I
just don't want to talk to them). However, people are much less likely to
speak to me if I'm wearing headphones or if I'm reading something on my phone,
laptop, or tablet.

However, I also disagree here that Google Glass will stop being dorky, and I
really think that it will be a while before it goes "mainstream." The reason
is that people were somewhat hostile when the iPad was first released. Indeed,
many people still look at tablet users as smug and see them as somehow
offensive. So, as has been said here, now you're making the tablet very tiny,
very expensive, and adding a nearly always-on camera to it.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out bluetooth ear pieces. You simply look like
a smug bastard or an idiot when you're using one (full disclosure, I used to
have one during college so that I could listen to music while riding my bike
to class, but also keep an ear open for traffic etc.) And Google Glass is
really not that much different from a bluetooth ear piece, except, again, that
it's got a little screen and a nearly always-on camera.

~~~
jimmytucson

        > I believe the idea that these technologies is alienating is false.
    

You know, there's one side to "alienating" where the world shuts you out. But
I think it's fair to say when people talk about headphones or Google Glass,
they also mean you shutting out the world. You're describing a scenario where
headphones basically make it harder for people to interact with you (correct
me if I'm wrong), or make it easier for you to avoid that interaction. So I
think these people are right in their sentiment that it makes the ocean
between us a little deeper and wider but maybe the use of the word
"alienating" is not quite right.

Does that make sense?

~~~
zacinbusiness
You're exactly right. Too often words like "alienating" are considered
negative, as I did. As a tool that allows me to focus on my work, alienation
is a good thing.

Note that I'm not bashing serendipitous meetings, those are often the best (I
met my wife that way). But I'm semi-neurotic (there's probably a word for it
that I don't know, maybe ADD?) and find it nearly impossible to get back to my
work if I'm even distracted for a short while.

------
aaronbrethorst
I don't think the Walkman is a good comparison at all. Instead, look at the
boom box. Big headphones today, or the Walkman in the 80s didn't invade
someone else's space. They allow a person to withdraw.

Boom boxes, and Google Glass, on the other hand, are explicitly outwardly
focused. They force your presence upon others.

~~~
thechut
You clearly haven't used Google Glass. With the exception of the camera,
everything is inward focused. Everything you do and see and interact with
glass happens with only visibility to you. Nobody else can see what you are
seeing.

I wouldn't compare it to the boombox at all.

~~~
michael_h

      With the exception of the camera...
    

The camera is a large part of what people are objecting to.

------
bryze
Maybe I'm just old, but I still think wearing headphones conveys a detached
air. My reaction isn't as strong as the 1981 interview, but it's there. Anyone
else feel that way?

~~~
benched
Listening to music as I move through my day is sublime. I fucking hate the
rest of you, so if people think I am _merely_ detached, I come out way ahead.

------
bcoates
That 1981 story is bizarre. Pocketable (AM-only!) transistor radios with an
earphone were on the market in the 50s and the "little Japanese radio" was
ubiquitous by the 1960s.

By 1981 I'm sure there were people still grousing about the good old days but
it would have been the equivalent of complaining about e-mail and the death of
the handwritten letter in the 2010s (and I'm sure NPR has done more than one
story about that in this decade because that's their shtick).

The Walkman was revolutionary because it was a portable _cassette deck_ , the
first true plays-anywhere format that allowed someone to completely divorce
themselves from radio music without any compromises.

------
kevinalexbrown
As someone in the habit of sticking my tongue out at surveillance cameras, I
might have to learn to restrain myself when staring at a human/camera mixture.

More seriously, I think this suggests a general principle: if something has
intrinsic value, that will eventually outweigh fashion concerns. Even though
bluetooth didn't totally take off, it seems like roughly half the people
talking on phones in lower Manhattan have earbuds in, and I can't think of a
place in the US that's more fashion-conscious.

The real question isn't whether people can't grow accustomed to glass, but
whether the benefits of glass outweigh the disadvantages, minus the fashion-
centric ones.

------
dhughes
It was the same with cellphones.

My uncle likes to tell a story of when (sometime before 1985) he had his brick
phone and was talking on it in the entrance of a K-Mart.

He was leaning up against a wall back to everyone trying to be discreet with
the new fangled invention of a cell phone.

As he was talking an elderly women was lurking behind him, he could hear her
looking through her change purse. He said he realized she was waiting for the
pay phone she thought he was using.

He left abruptly leaving nothing but the empty space and the wall and shocked
the woman who couldn't seem to grasp where the pay phone went.

~~~
syntaxfree
That says something interesting about behavior and how the function/form
relation is contingent but slow-moving. Star Trek communicators were supposed
to be used on loudspeaker and looked directly at, and yet when we got flip
phones we used them exactly like rotaries.

Your uncle had a mobile, but when he needed to talk in public, he needed the
kind of physical anchoring that was associated with talking on the phone in
public -- enough that he generated the illusion of being on a payphone. (Much
like if you talk on a cellphone that's connected to a charging chord, you
still generate the illusion of a landline).

What does this say about glass? That we want it to work like things that are
already there -- an always-with-you screen, for example, or a mini-GoPro --
and it might take a while to really come on its own. If it ever takes off, of
course. Google has deep pockets but the acceleration is unrelenting and
unforgiving.

------
mattgreenrocks
I'm not sure why people worry about social acceptability so much. Mainstream
opinion is basically that of sheep.

I'm old enough to remember when the Internet use had a significant social
stigma. Now teenage girls gorge themselves on it in public. The same people
who'd be so quick to judge now keep their mouths shut.

What changed? Oh, right: absolutely nothing.

~~~
mwfunk
When was there ever a widespread social stigma associated with Internet use?
This is not something that ever existed, so it's probably not a good analogy.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
The Internet was seen as this nerdy, niche thing for a long time. Thus, by
extension, you'd be more inclined to admit you stayed up late 'watching TV.'

This was the late nineties.

But correctness of analogy doesn't change the thesis: mainstream opinion is
whatever people are force-fed through bottom-of-the-barrel social norms.

------
Cthulhu_
I disagree on the comparison, tbh. Headphones is a purely personal experience;
when you see it, you know that person is enjoying some private time, isolating
himself from the busy / noisy outside world, or just being a douche. They
don't cause uproar because, even if they look silly or make you look silly or
like an audiophile (depending on make and model), it's something they do for
themselves.

Wearing Glass, on the other hand, is pretty much saying "I AM GOING TO RECORD
ALL THE THINGS!". Actually, nevermind; if Glass did not have a camera but was
just a heads-up display of sorts, nobody would care. All of the controversy
surrounding Glass is about the camera, not about what the original concept
was, a heads-up display.

tl;dr: the comparison makes if Glass was just a heads-up display for personal
information purposes, but it doesn't because it has a camera.

Picture headphones with a camera.

------
markerdmann
"Looking so dorky" is actually fairly low on the list of ways in which Google
Glass fails to be a usable product. Dustin Curtis wrote an excellent review in
which he discusses these more serious problems:

[http://dcurt.is/glass](http://dcurt.is/glass)

~~~
hrjet
Oh whoa, I didn't know that the eye had to refocus to watch the screen! I
thought it was more like a HUD and assumed that Google had mastered that part
of the system (and was probably the major innovation behind Glass).

Are there competing HUD systems out there which can be worn near the eyes and
don't require a refocus?

------
thechut
I have been using Glass for almost 3 months now. I have tried out almost all
the different apps for it at least once. And even written my own apps. My
experience has changed greatly over time.

When I first got glass, I felt extremely weird wearing it, it didn't feel
right on my face (I have never worn glasses for vision). But not only that, i
was very self conscious about it, it looks weird and I knew it. I would maybe
wear it for a little while and then take it off when I saw someone.

However, as time has progressed I wear it much more often. I have started to
see the value in it, hands free headset. Driving directions, step by step
instructions for things, and then the standard watch type functionality of SMS
and email alerts.

It doesn't feel weird on my face anymore and I don't feel like an ass hole
wearing it around anymore. It just took some getting use to.

It has been said here several times already, but the real key here is
usefulness. There needs to be a Glass killer-app, and I think that we are
close to having it. There will be lots of great use cases soon, and more will
crop up as time goes on.

If you are at ITEXPO this week and want to try glass and see a cool demo of
how it can be used in a real world situation, contact me and stop by our booth
and check it out.

------
codingdave
I think the analogy with headphones is accurate, but the article missed
something important"

Headphones in public are absolutely considered obnoxious. Old folk like me do
think they look silly, and we do think it says something negative about people
who cannot live without pervasive music in their lives.

The attitudes from 33 Years ago have not changed. But the youth just don't
notice (or don't care) that us older folk still think that.

EDIT: Now you kids get off my lawn!

~~~
aestra
I'm in my 30s and I completely agree with you!

Fahrenheit 451 was a dystopian novel not only because of the book burning but
because of the people's use of technology to divorce themselves from the
outside world and especially their relationships.

Ray Bradbury said in 1960

"In writing the short novel Fahrenheit 451 I thought I was describing a world
that might evolve in four or five decades. But only a few weeks ago, in
Beverly Hills one night, a husband and wife passed me, walking their dog. I
stood staring after them, absolutely stunned. The woman held in one hand a
small cigarette-package-sized radio, its antenna quivering. From this sprang
tiny copper wires which ended in a dainty cone plugged into her right ear.
There she was, oblivious to man and dog, listening to far winds and whispers
and soap-opera cries, sleep-walking, helped up and down curbs by a husband who
might just as well not have been there. This was not fiction."

[http://digboston.com/boston-news-opinions/2012/06/rip-ray-
br...](http://digboston.com/boston-news-opinions/2012/06/rip-ray-bradbury-
reflections-on-fahrenheit-451-and-science-fiction/)

------
baby
Actually, I still find big headphones weird. I bought one myself so I started
finding them okay, and there are a lot of people wearing them now that it
doesn't look so silly anymore.

Makes me think about this as well:

"Annette Kellerman promoted women’s right to wear a one-piece bathing suit
like this circa 1907… She was arrested for indecency"

[http://i.imgur.com/3aFSWSg.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/3aFSWSg.jpg)

~~~
zacinbusiness
I used to only wear earbuds simply because they were more portable. More
recently, though, I've begun wearing a full-size set (Bowers and Wilkins P3)
because I was tired of my music sounding "small." The difference is amazing
and I'll never go back.

~~~
ssully
I think it's entirely dependent on the type of headphones. The kind you
mention are really slim and sleek; they don't really look out of place. It's
when I see people wearing Beats or even bigger over/on ear headphones that
attract my attention. I don't think ill of people wearing these headphones,
but I do think they look silly because of how unwieldy the headphones seem.

~~~
zacinbusiness
You're correct about the larger cans. Personally, I dislike the weight of
those type, and also how unwieldy they are and that they do not produce
superior sound to smaller, more intelligently designed models (that usually
don't cost more).

------
adamnemecek
> It causes people to isolate themselves from their experience, the contact
> with nature - sort of, a neo-existential prelude to doom.

Mmm, yes. Shallow and pedantic.

~~~
mwfunk
What's pedantic in that quote?

~~~
adamnemecek
It's a quote.

~~~
Dylan16807
Definitely a quote. I still don't understand what you're calling pedantic.

~~~
adamnemecek
"Shallow and pedantic" is a quote.

~~~
Dylan16807
1\. Quote of what? It's not in the article.

2\. Why are you quoting it, do you agree or disagree in its original context,
are you applying it to the first quote in a serious/ironic/____ manner?

------
jff
Everyone's so busy shitting themselves over Glass users "recording everything
all the time". Oh no! They might have a recording of me entering a bathroom!
Maybe they'll record me talking about the movie I saw last week!

Where is all this footage going to be stored? Decent-resolution video is not
exactly small. How long will it take to fill up the 64 GB on your phone? If
you have a 1 TB disk at home to archive the video, how many days worth can you
store there? People certainly won't want to automatically upload to Youtube,
because then they'd be broadcasting their home address, the location of their
hidden house key, their credit card info every time they pay for something,
etc.

And how long can you record video with Glass before the battery dies? I've
heard that the battery is good for about a day with "normal" use; I don't
think capturing video and sending it to your phone for storage all day long
counts as "normal", I'd expect to get maybe 2 hours tops.

Have a little bit of fucking perspective, maybe.

------
hrjet
Would a version of Glass sans camera be more acceptable? Less voyeurism & less
surveillance.

I haven't used one so not sure how much of its functionality needs the camera.
As a user I might miss facial recognition, OCR, etc.

One middle ground could be to have a camera that only outputs information
useful for shape recognition, say for example, a monochrome sensor with an
edge detection pass.

------
blazespin
Google glass will become acceptable because it will be miniaturized and mostly
invisible, not because the currently obscene format will become 'a Walkman for
your eyes'.

Until then the only socially acceptable way to use them will be in work
situations, such as first responders and military.

Note, I currently own a google glass (amongst other wearable tech) and develop
for it.

------
fuzzywalrus
Skimming the original NPR article: "Unidentified Man #2: You know, it's nice
when you're walking around to hear other people talking and see what they're
doing. And you're kind of putting blinders on."

Culturally we've evolved to taken wearing headphones publicly in a public
place (such as a Grocery Store) as a subtle social cue that "I don't want
social interaction".

I imagine with early augmented reality devices like the Google Glass, we will
adapt social etiquette around them. Its less of a question if it will be
accepted but how social graces will accommodate such a technology. I imagine
similar behaviors will evolve around the Glass. I can speculate what those
might be but I think more importantly that the Google Glass may not stop
looking super dorky, but rather we will develop culture around said device,
and its acceptable uses.

------
kenrikm
I can see the point don't know if Glass will make it however it used to be
EXTREMELY weird to see people with bluetooth headsets and even more odd if
people were talking on them in public places "Are you talking to me?" now it's
so normal for the most part I don't even notice them.

~~~
aestra
Really? I haven't seen someone wear a bluetooth headset in public in years.

~~~
grkvlt
That's because people now use wired headphone/mic headsets for the most part
(and occasionally bluetooth stereo headphones with mic as well) so the users
just look like iPod listeners.

------
Zigurd
I believe the wearable format of Google Glass has a good chance to succeed
because it is radical enough to deliver enough value from its capabilities.
Watches are too tame, and too limited.

It can't be stopped. I want to know, based on face recognition, is the cop
walking up to my car known for aggression or for professionalism? I want to
know the population density of Bt and PLMN radios around me. I want a
subconscious sense of direction. I want to see impurities in air and water. I
want senses nobody has thought of yet. Glass is only the beginning, and it is
only perhaps minimally capable in the wearables spectrum of capabilities.

It is very likley this means multiple body-worn sensors. Maybe they will be
small, but, if not, they will probably become accepted as much as glasses,
rings, belt buckles, and other functional adornments.

------
eli
Predicting the future is hard. Some very smart people thought the Segway would
change the world, but when it launched a lot of "man on the street" types
thought it looked really dorky.

A decade later... it still looks dorky. (A lot of fun to use though, if you
ever get the chance)

------
natch
I took a commuter train the other day. A girl sat down next to me with her
glass on as I was texting.

My texts aren't always the most private thing in the world, but I don't really
want to have to give even a moment's thought to whether the person next to me
on the train is recording what's on my screen.

Whether it's even feasible or not to capture adequate quality with whatever
version of glass she had (old? new? super-high-res beta?) is not the point. I
do not want to have to think about it.

If you have a camera on your head, and it is pointing outward all the time and
potentially recording stuff like what I'm saying/doing/reading/writing, people
near you are going to be uncomfortable, end of story.

------
pwf
A relevant quote from 'Snow Crash':

Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence
Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their
bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back,
on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything
that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider; these getups are the modern-
day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculator pouch on the belt,
marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below
human society.

------
dllthomas
I think this does a good job of speaking to one issue with Glass. "It looks
dorky" will fade. There are negative reactions for other reasons, but
conflating all negative attributes of Glass isn't a good analysis.

For those raising privacy concerns _as an issue with this analysis_ \- do you
think the "that looks dorky" reaction _is in fact_ significantly motivated by
privacy concerns, or can you imagine a hip-and-chic styled product that is
nonetheless equally (potentially) voyeuristic raising only some of the present
objections?

------
mehwoot
I still think people wearing big headphones look stupid. I've never gotten
used to that. And if was chatting to somebody and they were wearing headphones
I would be uncomfortable.

None of which touches on the main reason I find google glass uncomfortable-
the thought that the other person could be recording everything. People say
"well CCTV records you all the time" but that is a world of difference between
having an overhead shot of you when you pay for gas and someone pointing a
camera in your face as you're chatting to a friend.

------
EGreg
There's a difference between having headphones on/in your ears and having
something obscuring your face, between the person looking at you and your
face. Doubly so when it has a camera pointed at said person. It feels like
it's BETWEEN the two of you, and delivering extra information to you. It feels
unnerving for that reason. Are you really looking at me? Humans establish eye
contact for a reason.

Kind of like when I'm talking to someone with headphones on. They take them
off before I feel comfortable to talk at length to them.

------
MatthiasP
People still go to greath lengths to get rid of their optical glasses even
though those were around for hundreds of years now, are widely-used and are
usually associated with positive attributes like intellectuality. For me
that's the strongest indicator that anything similar to Google Glass will
never become mainstream. Attractiveness beats out easier access to information
any day.

------
jorgem
>> You know, next thing they should do is have a little movies, you know,
little sunglass movies so you don't have to look, either.

Prior art.

------
huxley
While I generally hate the idea of Google Glass, a recent story by Ted Chiang
gave me a lot think about regarding omnipresent recording:

[http://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2013/the_truth_of...](http://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2013/the_truth_of_fact_the_truth_of_feeling_by_ted_chiang)

------
nettletea
I'd barely notice glass if it looked like that, far less prominent than
bluetooth headsets or white headphones, or people clutching smartphones and
bumping into each other, or just randomly standing stationary like the zombies
that we've become gazing into our navals, I mean smart phones.

------
bonemachine
And that's what's so terrifying about Glass.

That one day, suddenly, it will just be... the new _normal_.

------
nettletea
I'd be more concerned about the repurcussions of having it record everything
rather than what it looks like.

See Black mirror: The entire history of you.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/)

------
snowwrestler
People stopped caring about headphones to the extent that they liked using
headphones themselves.

The biggest problem with Google Glass is that it does not meet a clearly
defined need or desire that most people have. So there is nothing to balance
the dorkiness.

------
motters
Google glass has its problems, but barring any major catastrophes I expect
augmented reality eyeglasses to be very popular perhaps by the end of this
decade or the beginning of the next.

I see Google glass as the ZX-80 of augmented reality.

~~~
syntaxfree
Does this mean that every teen can write google glass apps now (Z80 assembly
was really easy to learn) but in twenty years time AR technology will be
unwieldy, crashy and overfeatured?

------
overgard
I think the counter argument is the Segway, which has probably gotten dorkier

------
larryla
I still think people who walk around with headphones on look ridiculous.

------
rwhitman
If attractiveness is based on facial symmetry and we wear an object
asymmetrically overlapping our face, does it make us seem less attractive?
Could that be the issue here?

------
becauseGoogle
Google Glass represents yet another bar set by the ever-evolving shitty arms
race of the invasive miserable grind of the human social condition.

If there's any proof that only the machines will survive in a world where we
used machines to kill each other off, it will be our inability to collectively
resist the unnecessary escalation that Google Glass represents.

------
ozten
I think looking at Bluetooth headset adoption would more informative.

~~~
massysett
I said "Bluetooth, that will never catch on, who wants to go around with a
thing in your ear with a flashing blue light? Makes you look like Borg." Now
people wear them all day.

And I never thought I would see people walking down the street staring at a
phone. "That would be dorky." Now people nearly collide with me on sidewalks
because they're looking down and, what's more, they eat meals in public places
with the phone sitting on the table like it's a little person.

~~~
mwfunk
They most definitely do not wear Bluetooth earpieces all day. There was a
brief period years ago when it was (relatively) a lot more common, but the
richly-deserved backlash appears to have mostly eliminated the practice. I
can't even think of the last time I encountered someone who just kept it on
all the time. Purely anecdotal, but I think I've actually seen people using
phone holsters more recently than I've seen anyone walk around with a
Bluetooth earpiece when they weren't actively talking on the phone or driving.

Maybe it's regional, I dunno. I'm in the Bay Area FWIW.

------
scelerat
Headphones still look dorky.

