Eh. And the iPad was destined to be a failure as "just a big iPhone".
I'm unwilling to predict the success of Glass, but I'm also unwilling to predict its demise. The jury hasn't even yet convened, much less come close to making a verdict.
For one thing, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the product. If the device is recording, a green light illuminates on the device - there's no missing it. Like jvrossb said also, the device doesn't cover your whole eye - if you're reading something on its screen you're very visibly looking up and to the side.
The "this will fail social norms" card has been played many times, and it has come to pass, but it hasn't been the core of a product failure. We went through growing pains when people friended everyone on Facebook and then realized what a bad idea it was to post pictures from their wild night out where their boss can see it.
We've almost entirely solved that problem now, and Facebook continues to see high engagement and picture sharing.
We also suffered through a few years of people staring into their phones at the dinner table. Social etiquette changed and now it's taboo.
In almost all cases social norms have shifted in response to new technology - our sense of what is appropriate socially is not a stationary target. If Glass can offer something people want, we will work around its social problems. The real trick is if Glass will actually offer something substantial people want.
The first live Glass demo wasn't a bunch of people at a cocktail party. It was skydivers, skateboarders, and bicyclists. Glass is going to be very popular as a sports accessory. I can see Google inking a deal with the NFL to equip every player with Glass for an "in the helmet" view of every tackle.
Do you actually think the NFL is going to place a sharp-edged cube of perspex 1 inch from a player's eye ? Because that sounds far-fetched to say the least.
Likewise I can't imagine anyone seriously using the fragile, expensive Glass instead of something a bit more rugged.
Ditto. The NFL will in particular would be a prime candidate since sports fans are already dying to be in the athlete's shoes (though not have athlete's feet).
The one hiccup in this would be safety. In the off chance a ball or another player's hand (they're not supposed to grab the shield or helmet, but it happens) crushes the device or worse, drives it into the player's eyes. They would need some sort of built-in thing if that's the case and I'm sure that the NFL will have rules against putting cameras on the back of the helmet so the player can keep an eye there.
Google Glass has a 5MP sensor, which can capture video at 720p, but given its size, the quality probably isn’t stellar.
In the use cases you mentioned, GoPro is the better choice. The most expensive model costs one third of Google Glass and captures 1440p at 48fps. It takes photos at 12MP and has advanced stabilization features built in. The GoPro is already the go-to sports accessory, I don’t see how Google is going to disrupt this market given its price and lackluster camera specs.
Imagine Glass being used by a golfer. No need for a golf tracker device. You can easily see how far you are from the hole, wind speed, etc.
Imagine Glass being outfitted into the helmet. Watching football will not be the same. Seeing the perspective of the quarterback when he is about to throw the ball makes watching the sport more exciting.
There are, and have been, more suitable products for that. I don’t think this is the use case Google has in mind for Glass. Google Glass is meant to be way more personal, collecting your movements and augmenting your physical world with content that Google has selected for you based on the information they have on you.
I could see cameras going on these helmets, but not the displays. It's not too hard to build a small-sensor mostly-solid-state ruggedized camera and transmitter into a helmet; and there's no need for a local display. The hard thing would be batteries (2-3h of transmit?)
Don't they have "quarterback cams" already? I don't watch sportsball myself.
A little while ago SOFREP did one of their tommy tacticool stories about new NVGs with cameras. It was a lot more than a helmet with a ruggedized gopro. I'm sorry but I cannot find the link atm.
The Contour HD with a side rail mount (so it fits close to the helmet on the side, usually just above a light) is fairly popular for people who don't have the $50k budget. Way less obtrusive than the GoPro mounts I've seen.
The "this will fail social norms" card has been played many times, and it
has come to pass, but it hasn't been the core of a product failure.
Yes it has. The first cell phones, the first PDAs certainly fell into this category and only later when they became less obtrusive did the gain any real traction. Outright failures are less memorable because they tend to not get very far: people realize they are a mistake before they get to market. But a couple examples I can think of off-hand:
WebTv: Not socially ok at all to treat your TV like a computer. Still not, really.
Delorean: Weird car with its gull wing doors, too different, can't be seen in that.
Indeed, as is the old trick of surreptitiously taking upskirt photos with a cameraphone. There are an infinite number of ways by which a bad actor can use Glass for nefarious ends - as is the case with almost any technology.
And that's the point I'm making - not that Glass is an infallible technology with no social downsides, but rather that its success isn't hinged on it. If it offers something valuable to its users and their friends, society as a whole will work around it - either by evolving the technology or evolving our notion of propriety. More likely, a bit of both.
We worked around security cameras (part of which involved new legislation regarding privacy effects thereof), we worked around Google Street View, and we'll work around this.
I for one do not think camera phones are chill, and many enterprises do not allow them in the workplace. I do not allow for people to take my picture or record me without my permission.
As a professional photographer, I have my subjects sign a release before or shortly after I take a picture they’re in. If they refuse to sign, I delete the material.
Interesting. I've never heard of a workplace where you can't bring your iPhone on the premises, but I guess there must be some. You must admit it's rare in the white collar sector.
> I do not allow for people to take my picture or record me without my permission.
I don't see how you have much control over it, at least in public. Maybe you live in a country where preventing others from recording you is a legal privilege.
> "In most countries, you can’t just take pictures of random people without their permission."
Citation needed, as a fellow photographer. Photographing people in public places, without consent, is entirely legal in almost all developed countries.
Some countries have stricter rules regarding publishing or publicizing these images, but restrictions on photographing people in public spaces without their consent is quit rare in the developed world.
Japan[1] has some of the strictest laws re: photographing random people, and even that is very much liability-based after the fact rather than a ban.
From the site you linked: "'You can't take my photo without permission'. Oh yes you can, usually." It's fairly clear cut that there's little you can do about it.
And I know for sure that banks don't forbid camera phones at least in general, because my father worked at one and all his people had blackberries. This was years ago, and camera phones have only become more ubiquitous.
“I know for sure that banks don't forbid camera phones at least in general”
I gave examples of settings where camera phones might be forbidden. At most regular branches of banks, they’re probably fine. I worked at the headquarters of a bank that also served as distribution center of most of my nation’s cash bills.
OK, so, it's rare. And you've as much as admitted that there's almost nothing you can do about it in public, so I've accomplished what I wanted to in this discussion.
But camera phones must be conspicuously placed to record, and even then, the perspective is usually skewed or there are sound and video artifacts from outside sources (the movement of the device, sounds of cloth rubbing against the mic, white noise).
With Glass, the ease of surveillance increases tenfold. Not only do you have an absolute perspective of how the end result is going to look because the device is on your face, but you have an open line of sight and artifacts will be reduced to a minimum due to its placement.
I'm not denying it would be easier with Glass, but have you never seen anyone take out their phone to text? How did were you sure they weren't making a video? It's not hard to record without being detected on an iPhone if you wish.
My main feeling is that the folks have latched onto a narrative about it that is not necessarily going to be that important in the real world, as we see happen so often with other things on this site.
(IMHO) if anything in the voice/text feature phone days, using your phone at the dinner table was considered rude - but the use of a smartphone seems to have become more socially accepted, depending on various contexts.
Using a smartphone or tablet in presence of company might be semi-acceptable, taking pictures or videos of people without their permission isn’t (and shouldn't be, IMHO).
I'm unwilling to predict the success of Glass, but I'm also unwilling to predict its demise. The jury hasn't even yet convened, much less come close to making a verdict.
For one thing, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the product. If the device is recording, a green light illuminates on the device - there's no missing it. Like jvrossb said also, the device doesn't cover your whole eye - if you're reading something on its screen you're very visibly looking up and to the side.
The "this will fail social norms" card has been played many times, and it has come to pass, but it hasn't been the core of a product failure. We went through growing pains when people friended everyone on Facebook and then realized what a bad idea it was to post pictures from their wild night out where their boss can see it.
We've almost entirely solved that problem now, and Facebook continues to see high engagement and picture sharing.
We also suffered through a few years of people staring into their phones at the dinner table. Social etiquette changed and now it's taboo.
In almost all cases social norms have shifted in response to new technology - our sense of what is appropriate socially is not a stationary target. If Glass can offer something people want, we will work around its social problems. The real trick is if Glass will actually offer something substantial people want.