
How the Camera Doomed Google Glass - prostoalex
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/how-the-camera-doomed-google-glass/384570/?single_page=true
======
OneMoreGoogler
The smartphone requires awkwardly peering at a glass rectangle, yet it
effortlessly reorganized social norms, because it's so damn useful and
interesting. So why didn't Glass do the same thing?

> I found that it was not very useful for very much

That's it. That's the real issue, not the camera.

~~~
dazonic
Yep. Plus incredibly uncool looking.

------
moonshinefe
A large % of the population these days participate in social media and seem to
have no qualms about putting all their personal / private details online,
despite that that might mean massive backlash if it goes viral, or at the very
least a permanent record of any mistakes made (the internet doesn't forget).

To me, Glass got the backlash it did because there are still a lot of people
who think that way of living is stupid. People are getting sick of 24/7
surveillance, and Glass was merely a great poster boy for that push.

It's also just dehumanizing to talk to someone with that on. They have a big
camera / computer strapped onto their face. It's almost like trying to talk to
someone when they've got their phone held up and are only half paying
attention to you while recording. It just comes across as really rude to a lot
of folks.

~~~
pradn
People are comfortable with things that they choose to do. People put up
statuses, pictures, and all sorts of private info on social media of their own
choosing. If someone else wears Google Glass and decides when, where, and if
to take your photo, your choice of what to share and store is taken away. As
another example: people are fine with group photos taken with their knowledge
and uncomfortable with strangers taking their photo without asking.

------
digitalronin
I think the article's conclusion, that a camera should not have been included,
is naive.

Smart glasses with no way to get visual input from the environment would be a
much less useful product. So, that means having a camera, and if you have a
camera you can record the input from it. I'll be very surprised if anyone ever
releases smart glasses with no camera.

Having said that, I'm not surprised Glass isn't doing so well. I think our
culture isn't quite at the point where an always-on wearable video camera is
socially acceptable. Give it a couple of years, and it probably will be.

~~~
woodman
> Smart glasses with no way to get visual input from the environment would be
> a much less useful product.

The only real use for Glass was a HUD + low quality camera, considering the
positioning of the actual display. You don't need a camera for a HUD. Now if
Glass went after augmented reality, then I'd totally agree with you.

~~~
potatolicious
Agreed. The camera never had any truly compelling use case - even the most
basic one, taking a picture, was not actually a UX improvement over taking out
your phone and doing it, especially considering the leaps and bounds by which
phone camera (both hardware software) has improved.

There were some cool _tech demos_ that exploited the camera rather
impressively - facial recognition for one, but all of these are technological
curiosities rather than mass-market useful. There was never a use case that
seemed relevant to the everyday user where the camera was really all that
useful.

I do think the camera contributed substantially to the failure of the product.
More than the _existence_ of the camera was how it was handled - no
record/activity light as has been customary on many such devices, and the
design of it felt viscerally like a hidden camera.

Which isn't to say Google intended to create a hidden camera, but in trying to
make it blend and look like normal glasses it made the camera seem less
upfront, more dishonest, and more intrusive than, say, a guy who is literally
wearing a camera on his head.

~~~
ericd
I own a Glass, and I have to disagree, the camera was a very large improvement
over using your phone. Hands free use and no lag between wanting to take a
picture and taking a picture (winking to take a pic) make a huge difference in
utility. I got some great photos that I couldn't have gotten otherwise while
traveling with it.

Too bad it didn't have many other uses, and made being out in public kind of
awkward.

The press made a big deal of the camera creeping people out, but in practice,
the reaction was much more curiosity and interest than fear. I think the press
just wanted something to write about, and in the absence of revolutionary
abilities and interesting use cases, they wrote about its perceived flaws and
did a bit of fear mongering.

------
shittyanalogy
Including a camera also made it hard to see past the camera. The only think
people would ever talk about is the camera, and argue about whether people
should have a camera on their heads, wonder if they would want to use a camera
that way, tell people to take it off because of the camera. If there was no
camera, I wonder what aspects of it's technology would have been the focus of
discussion. Then again if there was no camera, would it have even appealed to
people in the first place?

~~~
tluyben2
One of the early big interviews about Glass featured Brin or Page (not exactly
sure who of the two) telling that Glass is for taking POV pictures. And he
talked about nothing else. While all tech guys (like me) where dreaming about
augmented reality, or even just having some Android apps of choice in my view
all the time while being able to walk around, all he focused on (and everyone
since) was taking pictures. So it was intentional to not look past the camera
I guess.

~~~
ryanwanger
Are you talking about this TED "presentation"?
[http://www.ted.com/talks/sergey_brin_why_google_glass?langua...](http://www.ted.com/talks/sergey_brin_why_google_glass?language=en)

Don't bother watching it. TLDR; Sergey stands awkwardly on stage for 5
minutes, telling you how isolating it is to whip out your cellphone. With
Glass you can keep your head up, something he cannot seem to demonstrate
himself - choosing instead to come across as isolated from the audience,
distracted, and unprepared. 2 million people have watched this for some
reason.

------
clancy
What am I going to use to do my life doccing and interfacing with Second Life
while I'm zooming around on my Segway?

------
throwwit
IMO... Design of the thing only took into account the technical side. If
they're going to push new social norms... they should go full futurist. Maybe
try redesigning the social cues... In lieu of a red camera light maybe some
electrochromic lenses or mirror, and build social trust that way.

~~~
aragot
Paul Graham once wrote an article on the curse of implementing an idea when
you had enough money:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/segway.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/segway.html)

------
melvinmt
They could have mitigated this trust issue by requiring people to hold a
button on the side of the device to enable the camera. That would be a
socially acceptable enough gesture that would signal: "FYI, I'm recording."
just like holding up your phone to take a picture does.

------
r00fus
This is why I wasn't interested in one. It's like the Glass team simply
couldn't comprehend or bother to care why someone wouldn't want to have their
camera pointed at people _all the time_.

~~~
bsder
Except that you _already_ have cameras pointed at you 100% of the time.

If people are this uncomfortable about Google Glass, they had better start
tuning in on the implications of everybody uploading selfies and videos on
Facebook, YouTube, etc.

~~~
r00fus
Hogwash. The number of times I see people actively aiming their lens at me is
quite small despite the large number of smartphones and the like around me
everyday.

If you can't determine the difference in social expectation from a watch that
is literally pointed all the time vs your occasional "selfie" \-- well, keep
guessing as to why others were pissed to feel "potentially" recorded without
consent.

~~~
humbledrone
Nearly everywhere in public (at least in a decent-sized city) you are highly
likely to be captured on CCTV.

~~~
unwind
That is not globally true.

Here in Sweden for instance, public space can't legally be covered by CCTV
without a permit. That means private entities can't just throw up cameras at
random. Of course it happens anyway, but it's not "nearly everywhere".

~~~
icebraining
And that's true in many other Europeans countries as well. And at least here
in Portugal those permits only allow you to store those records for a specific
purpose (security), for a limited time period (30 days) and can't be shared
with third-parties.

------
jedc
As someone who has actually used Google Glass, the camera/videocamera was the
very best part about it. The killer app for me (and others that I knew) was
taking photos/videos of their kids. My daughter knew what I was doing when I
pulled out my phone (and often wanted to take it from me), but she didn't know
what to make of Glass and so I got a ton of great candid photos/videos of her.

That said, I was always VERY self-conscious wearing Glass, which doomed the
experience for me for the most part.

------
jkot
Camera issue is easily solvable by visible LED activated when camera is
recording. Phones are also capable of hidden video/voice recording, but nobody
cares.

Usability is what killed Google Glass. Voice recognition does not really cut
it. Joystick in ring on finger would be great. Or perhaps muscle sensor on
neck to capture silent speaking.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_speech_interface](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_speech_interface)

~~~
levosmetalo
> Phones are also capable of hidden video/voice recording, but nobody cares.

At least with phones it's clearly visible when someone is pointing a phone to
something in order to make a recording or picture, which is not the case in
glass.

The point about silent voice recording is valid, but, in general, people are
much less sensitive about voice recording than video or picture. Maybe because
identification using voice only is much less accurate and privacy obtrusive.

I don't have problems giving honest opinion anonymously to radio stations, but
would never even talk to a tv guys.

------
ensby
Google glass "utterly improbable", "too smooth" and "a fantacy" according to
Alex Feyerke who compares Microsoft visions and Google glass promos to an old
vision video of the British postal office that include normal problems an
realism in this video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPz_5-MEvcg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPz_5-MEvcg)

~~~
carlob
I think you linked to the wrong video.

~~~
michaelt
No, it's the right video. Jump to 1m56s for the first (microsoft) video.

------
eterm
I'm not going to cry over glass, I just hope it hasn't doomed similar
products.

I'm affected by prosapagnosia; When I first heard of glass the possibility
that it could be used to provide facial recognition to aid my own shitty
facial recognition seemed wonderful.

But then I read that google wouldn't allow facial recognition anyway. Until I
read that I was prepared to get in as soon as possible.

------
raldi
Why didn't they just add a red LED to the front that turns on when recording
video, and blinks after a photo is taken?

~~~
lotu
I'm going to presume this is sarcasm because that is literally exactly what
they did.

~~~
potatolicious
What? I've used Glass, there is no "record light". It is perfectly possible,
without hacks or nefarious programming, to take pictures and record video
without any outward indication of activity.

Savvy people could try to spot Glass being used by looking for the subtle glow
when the HUD screen turns on, but that's a _very_ far cry from an actual
"activity light".

------
asdkl234890
Or maybe it was Magic Leap, which they invested in, and will probably be the
next "Google Glass".

------
twsted
I agree that the camera has a serious social impact and it was one of the
cause for this initial failure.

Unfortunately, I think we will also get used to this.

------
evotech
I like how technology like this self regulates.

------
iamjoday
amazing how mountable and wearable camera is ok with gopro and other similar
solution but not ok with google glass...

I believe its not camera but elite and exclusiveness it created got
backfired... (though typically it has worked well for other products launches
like gmail etc.)

also 1500$ tag is bit over priced for a tech gadget..

Nash, [http://joday.com](http://joday.com)

~~~
Cthulhu_
It is OK with Google Glass, just not all the time - gopros are mainly used by
narcissistic adrenaline junkies who want to record themselves doing awesome
stuff like jumping out of an airplane. Usually not when walking down the
street having a coffee. That would be weird.

