
Why 2014 is the 'year of smart glasses' - iamtechaddict
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9244927/Why_2014_is_the_year_of_smart_glasses_
======
adventured
I consider that I live day to day in a very average technical social scene. I
don't know a single person that wants to have to wear smart glasses, myself
included.

There isn't a scenario under which a company can convince me to frequently
wear glasses. You couldn't pay me to do it, I hate the physical annoyance.

I have an alternative prediction: while the tech people predicting smart
glasses or smart watches are the future, the smart phone will simply roll on
dominating the 'smart' category, overwhelmingly. Five years from now, smart
phones will still dominate, to such a degree it'll be viewed as a joke in
hindsight that anybody thought smart watches or smart glasses would replace or
even meaningfully compete with smart phones. This will befuddle all the
experts, because they don't actually understand the larger consumer market.

I'm not a big Apple fan, but I believe the reason why the best consumer
electronics company hasn't been in a rush to dive into smart watches or smart
glasses, is because both are borderline irrelevant side markets and will
remain so. It would have been like Apple feeling the need to dominate the LCD
picture viewing device segment that was temporarily the 'thing' seven or eight
years ago.

Another prediction: smart glasses will be useful enough beyond what smart
phones offer, in about another decade, to justify some independent category
success. In the meantime the failure of the category to catch sustainable
consumer traction, is, again, going to astound the 'experts.'

~~~
majgr
Do you need iPhone, if iWatch has the same, or bigger display? (curved
sapphire glass). Smartphone solves problem of having a computing device all
the time with you, but in order to get that you have to pay with screen size.
Smartglasses solves the same problem as smartphone, but without tradeoffs.
They can display touch, augmented, or desktop, or tv interfaces. You don't
need a tablet, phone, laptop, desktop, tv. You need boxes with small(pocket),
medium(backpack), and large(desk) computing power, and glasses that can
receive video over the air. (and some input method). If glasses are only for
display, they don't need large battery.

------
mildtrepidation
Ugh, I really hope not. I can't see any reason people _wouldn 't_ use this,
though, since it's a lot less likely for someone to care about other people's
privacy or convenience than their own.

I can certainly see myself asking people to take them off if they want to talk
to me (unless they're the same people that currently browse/text/play on their
cell phones during conversations, as that's a conversation you might as well
not have anyway).

More cameras, microphones, and sensors all over people, and mostly connected
to the internet. What could go wrong? This is obviously a good direction.

~~~
csallen
I really don't like this mindset because, ultimately, it's a losing one.
Technology marches on. It's already possible for people to wear undetectably-
small cameras and computers on their bodies, and we're heading toward a world
in which these types of devices will not only be feasible, but both affordable
and useful. In other words: mainstream.

Given the reality of the situation, it's short-sighted to poke fun at
"Glassholes" and complain about smartphone users, as if these technologies are
merely obnoxious fashion trends that will disappear in time. Hundreds of years
ago there I'm sure there were swordsmen who complained that gunpowder-based
warfare was dishonorable. Is that who we want to be?

Yes, things can go wrong.

Yes, technology can empower evil just as well as it can facilitate good.

Yes, 2050 will be different than 2000.

So what? This has been true since the dawn of time. When did it become
fashionable for techies to despair at the inevitable advance of technology?
When did it become popular to whine incessantly about change? To look at every
new development with an attitude of pessimism? To pretend that the world of
yesterday was so perfect and pristine? What happened to putting our heads down
and working on creative solutions to the problems that face us?

~~~
krapp
But your assertion seems to be that new technologies should be above criticism
by virtue of the inevitable march of technology itself, part of which is
driven by consumerism and hype, and not any process which necessarily judges
technology on its own merit. It hasn't yet been proven that smart glasses are
going to be as transformative as gunpowder, or as revolutionary as the
internet, or what have you. Maybe they will be, maybe not. Yes, an attempt by
Google and other companies to push the new paradigm onto consumers will
inevitably be made, but that's not necessarily the same as those technologies
being an evolutionary leap forward.

Some of the criticism is probably knee-jerk discomfort and something new and
nostalgia for the simplicity of the past, sure, but pessimism when properly
applied is just part of the process of trying to look past the cloud of
marketing spin and fannish enthusiasm surrounding an emerging technology and
discern its actual relevance.

~~~
csallen
Yes, Glass may fail, but it seems obvious to me that the perpetual shrinking
of technology is an unstoppable trend that was set in motion decades ago. It
turns out that computers, and phones, and recording devices, and the internet
are all _really useful_ technologies, and people like having access to them
wherever they go with as little hassle as possible. As time approaches
infinity, the likelihood of our brains becoming hosts to powerful artificial
computers approaches 100%.

It's _going_ to happen. It already _is_ happening. And it's _been_ happening.
Trying to stop it is impossible, and merely complaining about it gets us
nowhere. I have no problem with a bit of pessimism, but if it's going to be so
pervasive, I'd at least like it to be constructive or useful in some way. Less
"omg this is happening" and more "this is happening, how can we adapt?"

~~~
Silhouette
_Trying to stop it is impossible, and merely complaining about it gets us
nowhere._

On the contrary. I fully expect that in many places, overtly creepy technology
like Google Glass will shift a long-overdue privacy debate that seems to be
gathering momentum. If technology like Google Glass becomes socially
unacceptable and illegal, it will not become pervasive in the manner you
described.

~~~
csallen
If it became illegal, sure. The chances of that are almost nil though. Almost
everyone carries a camera with them nowadays, and public cameras have been
commonplace for decades.

It if becomes socially unacceptable, then it's just a matter of time. People
don't like Glass because it looks clunky, nerdy, and distracting. What happens
when technology improves to the point where it looks like a normal pair of
glasses? What happens when we can put a chip in a contact lens? A phone in
your brain? Your brain in a robot?

~~~
krapp
>Almost everyone carries a camera with them nowadays,

Yes but they don't point that camera directly at everyone they talk to, all
the time.

>People don't like Glass because it looks clunky, nerdy, and distracting.

I think it looks kind of nice for what it is. It's still creepy though.

>What happens when we can put a chip in a contact lens? A phone in your brain?
Your brain in a robot?

OK... those last two are just bad ideas all around. In any case though I
personally am less concerned with the form factor or the technology as I am
the premise that concerns about privacy are irrelevant because the
surveillance gear is ever advancing in complexity.

~~~
csallen
When you go out in public you quite often have cameras pointed at you. You
just don't care because out-of-sight, out-of-mind. If those same public
cameras were extracted from ceilings and placed on extremely conspicuous
tripods sitting on the ground, I bet people would feel less comfortable,
despite little having changed.

Reminds me of the guy who got kicked out of the Seattle restaurant a few weeks
ago for refusing to remove Glass. The restaurant said it didn't want to open
its customers up to the possibility of being recorded without their consent.
Of course, on the restaurant's very own Facebook page were numerous shots of
customers dining, many of which were obtained without any knowledge or
consent. The hypocrisy was lost on them, unfortunately.

People underemphasize form and overemphasize function.

When it comes down to it, most of us are being photographed all the time.
Exponentially more-so today than anyone was 100 years ago. And with the rise
of smartphones, substantially more-so today than anyone was even 10 years ago.
Smart glasses are merely another rung on the ladder. Every argument you make
could have been made for smartphones as well.

~~~
Silhouette
Everything you say might be factually true, but it doesn't follow that no-one
has been bothered by it until now. Some of us have been raising concerns about
things like pervasive surveillance by governments and/or big businesses for
some time. But the issues aren't sufficiently well understood yet by the
general population, nor directly harming a large enough subset of that
population, for most people to feel strongly about them.

Particularly with the relative hardship many have faced over the past few
years, they are quite understandably more concerned about things like keeping
a roof over their head and putting food on their children's plates. But every
now and then you see people up in arms over things like how much it costs for
a new driver to get the (legally required) insurance in the UK today, and you
get a glimpse of where we're heading if we continue on our current course.

A disproportionate number of the people I know personally who already share
similar cautious views to my own are involved with technology. I suspect this
is because of the awareness we share of how technology and in particular all
this data _could_ be used, even if the data is merely being collected today
and not yet exploited. Most people don't realise the full implications of what
is already happening yet, so they aren't concerned enough to act today, but
that doesn't necessarily mean they would still be OK with something if they
were fully informed or knew that it would eventually affect them or their
loved ones and not just other people.

~~~
csallen
To be honest, I worry about how all this data _could_ be used as well. I just
hope we can focus the conversation around the more more productive topic of
stopping malicious activities, rather than around the frivolous topic of
stopping technological advancement.

------
coldtea
Year of smart glasses?

It's a half assed product, introduced years before it's any good for use, and
it's main real utility is that of a smaller Go Pro-style live action camera.

Plus, it didn't even make any dent in the market.

It's not like Google search in 1996 or the iPhone in 2007, products that
immediately changed whole markets.

So, no, 2014 would not be the year of "smart glasses".

With the display technology used and the battery life they have, those things
are useless, except for showing off.

Except for the "eye level live action camera" part, you can do the same things
with your smartphone, better and faster.

~~~
codingdave
Just for the sake of argument -- We tell software startups to get their MVP
out as fast as possible in order gain feedback and improve the product... yet
we smack down hardware vendors who have done exactly that?

~~~
beggi
Hardware != software - releasing half assed hardware early is completely
different that releasing a half assed web app that can be updated almost
constantly. But I think Google is mostly not getting smacked down for
releasing Google Glass too soon - the opinion that Glass is ready for prime
time is getting smacked down. IMO Glass is obviously not ready for prime time
and won't be for a few years at least, but this is all just moot anyway, the
article is obvious clickbait. People love a good "Next year is the year of the
whatever".

------
bsirkia
I really think this will be the year of smart watches. Smart glasses look so
absurd, I think this year there will be a number of options for glasses in
market, but they won't gain popularity 2015-2016.

Smart watches, however, don't look particularly different than normal watches,
they aren't obtrusive to other people, etc. like glasses are.

EDIT: Using words better.

~~~
kumarm
I doubt there ever will be a Year of Smart Watches. They are too small (and
too far to eyes) to provide a smart screen.

~~~
bsirkia
My thinking on it is that they'll become popular fast because as we become
more connected to our phones, smart watches are a much less obtrusive and
disrupting way to look at notifications. Basically, you can add a screening
device onto your wrist that you can use when you're in meetings, driving,
walking down the street, to quickly decide if it's worth pulling out your
phone without making it obvious you're pulling out your phone.

~~~
moonka
It doesn't just have the effect of making it less obvious. I grabbed a Pebble
recently, and it's had the effect of making me actually use my phone a lot
less. Before, anytime I would hear my phone go off, I would check it and see
if it's an important email or text, and frequently end up checking a few other
things out of habit. Now, I only do that if I've seen it's actually important,
which happens much less often.

------
bonemachine
"Year of the Glasshole" would be a better title.

------
vectorpush
I doubt it. Battery life is still too poor. If it needs to be charged even
once during the daytime people will just stop using it after the novelty
fades.

------
hyp0
This is old news, but: smart glasses solve the problem of making something
smaller and more convenient, without the problem of a too-small screen.

While google glass does look stupid, it's not hard to make cool-looking
sunglasses.

Privacy concerns will delay adoption, but unfortunately we've already lost
privacy. It will just take a while for us to accept it - though I doubt we
will by 2014.

------
Tyrant505
I don't understand the desire to isolate each wearable in such ways. We have
in our pocket a computer which should always have order of magnitudes of
processing power and storage, to which other wearables should be able to take
advantage of! Think the old days of logging in to your powerful mainframe, but
on the body(glasses watches, clothes bluetooth into your pocket computer.) So
a lot less needs to be embedded into each, to make it more style
worthy(smaller footprint), and feature rich.

~~~
psuter
That's how Google Glass works. It needs to talk to your cellphone.

------
NAFV_P
I'm myopic with astigmatism, so I am very interested when the ophthalmic
version is coming out. When I visit HN using my 15.6 inch screen laptop I have
the zoom set to 150% or higher (the text is tiny), with my specs on.

An ophthalmic frame has to endure a fair amount of physical stress during the
glazing procedure, especially curved frames. Also my dominant eye is oculus
sinister, am I supposed to wear these damn things upside down?

------
simonholroyd
2014 will be the year of the ____________ .

There's got to be some better alternatives. Ideas?

~~~
dustinupdyke
Personally, I think 2014 will be the year of location services because of
iBeacons and BT LE.

------
fjcornell
I see smart glasses as the next tablet. Initially, no one wanted one, they did
poorly, and early manufacturers scrapped their product lines. Now suddenly,
they are indispensable.

~~~
krapp
Tablets had a more rational form factor than I think glasses do, though, in
terms of practical ergonomics. I'm not convinced that smart glasses improve on
tablets or netbooks or phones as a user experience enough to justify a
prediction that they could surpass them in the marketplace. Augmented reality
and voice command are nice but are people really looking for that? Is it more
useful to have to tell your device everything you want it to do?

The article makes a point of mentioning concerns about privacy then sort of
dismissing them. Later it mentions an app (take a picture every time you wink)
that I think would send people up the wall. Coupling a device's use with the
implicit social issues regarding eye contact and personal space is going to
create a bigger problem for adoption than the article implies.

Disclaimer: But no, I haven't ever actually used Google Glass. It costs more
than my car did.

------
mistercow
Is there a better predictor that year X _won 't_ be the year of Y, besides
tech sites in December of X-1 saying "X will be the year of Y"?

~~~
patcon
Nice. lingual algebra is the new snowclone

------
dmak
I don't think glasses as a wearable tech will catch on. I think it would be
socially awkward for everyone to be sitting at a table with Google glass on.

------
heterogenic
You mean like 2013 was the year of the smart watch?

~~~
jkelsey
Can't wait for 2015! Year of the smart clothes!

~~~
onedev
2016: Year of smart people.....well at least I can dream :)

------
jonb
2014 will be the "internet of things" (Bluetooth LE) and wearables will be a
subset of it.

------
rhizome
"Prediction is hard, especially about the future."

------
jbeja
"year of smart glasses' not in my country :(.

~~~
coldtea
Yes, because that's just what your country needs, right?

(Whatever it is)

~~~
jbeja
Delinquents would steal it from the first time i go out with them though :p

------
craigyk
the title alone reeks of future foot in mouth

