

Robert Scoble and Jaron Lanier on wearable technology [video] - whyleyc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22770908

======
stroboskop
You may or may not like him, but Jaron Lanier is right in that interview: _It
is dangerous that corporations control the data of devices you are supposed to
wear._

Scoble doesn't seem to care about that.

~~~
elorant
Scoble doesn’t seem to care about anything. He behaves like a highly
uncultured person who haven’t got a clue about pretty much everything except
his job.

~~~
Selfcommit
When you hand the type of person you described Google Glass.. they become a
Glasshole. This might be the best definition yet. (Disclaimer: I LIke Glass,
just not some of the fools who use it)

~~~
Torgo
Incidentally Scoble was one of the people brought up to ask questions during
Google I/O 2013, and identified _himself_ as a "glasshole."

------
CognitiveLens
This doesn't seem like much of a grilling because it's essentially coming from
Paxman's naive/populist viewpoint rather than direct experience or deep
thought. Jaron does provide some of those perspectives, but carefully
distinguishes between the _device's_ attributes and _Google's_ attributes -
the former being relatively benign and the latter being potentially evil or
manipulative or at the very least commercial. I would like to see a longer,
unmediated conversation between the two techies, because it seems like the
their excitement and resentment come from the potential of the technology more
than its current implementation. Such a conversation could actually influence
development toward one kind of Glass future or another.

The comments about narcissism are interesting for the public but are
ultimately banal and non-specific to this particular technology. The related
questions about privacy and how the technology further eliminates barriers
between public and private life, however, could use a lot more popular
discussion...

~~~
motters
As far as I remember Paxo is no dummy, so this looks like a superficial fluff
piece to fill time on a slow news day.

What would have been more insightful would be for them to talk about the
commodification of the self and how various aspects of personal life are, or
will be with the aid of new technology, increasingly commercialised and turned
into some kind of property in a manner which they weren't previously. So for
example I doubt that whatever companies are selling AR systems in future will
be able to resist the temptation to "harvest" and sell personality or health
metrics to any other organisations which might want to buy.

------
Selfcommit
Total waste of time.

Lanier is obnoxious and comes off as a total clown. Paxman is not really
interested in the topic. Scoble is just a Glasshole.

I'd like my 10 minutes back.

~~~
Selfcommit
I respect the right of those who can to downvote me, but I hope it's not in
defense of Glass.

I love the product, I can't wait to get my hands on one.

Objectively however, the 3 speakers really offered nothing.

~~~
greyman
But what could Robert do better? He answered why he likes Glass, and after a
few sentences, he was always interrupted by the interviewer. He couldn't
provide any more insight in such a short time he was given. But I agree with
you regarding the other two guys.

~~~
Selfcommit
I agree I was probably a bit harsh on Robert.

I was a bit put off by the photo of himself in the shower.

------
corresation
I found the host obnoxious, personally, and the show was from the outset
staged as a Fox style take-down: Scoble is "self-obsessed" (this "narcissism"
angle was a recurring theme in this. Yet another discussion about Scoble
taking a picture of himself in the shower...in a series of blog posts where he
was talking about integrating Google Glass into his life) because he uses the
device for biometrics, leveraging technology for better health insights? I'd
say as a 48 year old male he's making a smart decision.

Another irritating aspect to every one of these discussions is the argument
that Google is an advertising company so therefore everything they do is and
will always be about advertising. While Google has some golden handcuffs of
advertising dropping a lot of cash in their coffers (which their competitors
have as well, as an aside, to varying success. Microsoft has an ad branch.
Apple has an ad branch), they have endlessly been demonstrating that they are
trying to build secondary businesses.

The raw cynicism to discard an entire computing experience is not useful.

~~~
whyleyc
The host is something of a legend here in the UK :)

Not least for this: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00r2912>

~~~
philbarr
I think I would go less with "legend" and more with "notorious twat". Can't
stand that aggressive style of interviewing myself, especially because now
every half-wit newsreader thinks they're the next Paxman by interrupting the
interviewee every 5 seconds.

~~~
klearvue
Paxman can be quite aggressive, and I would say justifiably, with politicians
trying to avoid answering a question. For another side of Paxman see this
interview with Christopher Hitchens -
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00r2c42>

------
roymckenzie
This was the most awkward interview I've seen in a while...

------
kmasters
Real journalists put people on the spot.

Their (the subjects) feelings dont matter. Go watch some 60 minutes Mike
Wallace interviews.

If they can charm their way through the interview they win. If they cant well
then we can all think about that.

But dont for one second think that a real journalists ideal should be to play
host to technology bozos.

If being polite were a journalistic trait Nixon would still be in office.

~~~
ChikkaChiChi
Yes, but how would they get their next interview?!

Rock the boat too hard and suddenly you're outside the circle of trust. Enough
talking heads out there kiss ass to the point that press releases posing as
journalism rule the day.

But hey, at least you'll be on the guest list for the next Apple event!

