Slashdot Mirror
Sergey Brin Says Using a Smartphone Is 'Emasculating'
An anonymous reader writes "While speaking at the TED Conference in California earlier today, Sergey Brin seemingly tried to set the stage for a world where using Google Glass is as normal as using a smartphone. What's more, Brin went so far as to say that using smartphones is 'emasculating.' Brin said that smartphone users often seclude themselves in their own private virtual worlds. 'Is this the way you're meant to interact with other people,' Brin asked. Are people in the future destined to communicate via just walking around, looking down, and 'rubbing a featureless piece of glass,' Brin asked rhetorically. 'It's kind of emasculating. Is this what you're meant to do with your body?' Is wearing futuristic glasses any better?"
Another reader sends in an article that also muses on our psychological connection to our devices. Or, as he puts it, the "increasingly weird and perhaps overly intimate relationship we have with our gadgets; the fist we touch when awake, the last at night. Our minds have become bookended by glass."
This is vs staring into some one's face while you ignore them while reading something off your glasses?
I don't know about Brin, but my e-masculinity is e-normous. Bookends help hold it all in.
Sent from my ENIAC
The size of your screen?
these glasses are going nowhere. They look stupid so they are dead on arrival. Furthermore, they only appeal to the part of the population that already wears glasses.
The hype over these nerd glasses couldn't more clearly illustrate how out of touch dorks are with regular people.
There are a number of things you can say about a smartphone, but - emasculating? Seriously? Out of what orifice did he pull THAT?
Is Brin worried that Glasses are going to be another Q?
#DeleteChrome
I don't think you want to know what touches my fist when I awake.
the fist we touch when awake, the last at night
Hmm, so you're into fisting are you?
By the way, most smartphones have a spellchecker. Maybe /. editors could use them to post articles...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
too much glass...
Sent from my ENIAC
IMHO even if Glass is clearly the superior device, it makes you look like a dork/nerd.
There is no way to change that until they look like regular glasses. Until then, all you can do is attack your main competitor, the smarthpone, or it will go the way of the segway.
Sergey, you should leave the marketing to professionals in your organization. You can be the "vision" guy but don't trying to create the narrative for your company. You are not Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs was the founder of Apple and the CEO until recently but he had some qualities that are unfortunately uncommon among tech industry CEOs. He knew how to "think" like the common man and figure out what the common man wanted before he knew that he wanted it. He also had a sense of taste and an extreme attention to detail to help his company "polish" their products.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Yes, looking at a smartphone while doing something else makes you look like a dweeb. Hanging the screen in front of your face won't help.
Sergey just doesn't get it. My Android phone is a big swinging phallic symbol, especially when it does those 3D maps.... iPhone toting hipster chicks never fail to notice. Got plenty of mileage out of that, opposite sex wise. Sergey just doesn't know how to hold it.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You keep on using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Seriously, does he legitimately expect that I'm going to suddenly ditch my phone and throw the contents of my wallet at him for a product that makes Navin's Opti-Grab look stylish simply because he's calling me and one-seventh of the human population -- including women -- castrated girly-men?
...by allowing you to stare blankly at the person right in front of you while you're looking at Google's stream of information about the world around you.
Do you worry about being emasculated by rubbing your featureless piece of glass in your fist? Well, your worries are over, my friend! With your Google Goggles, you'll be able to show everyone your masculinity with two free hands to rub whatever you want in your fist! Act now, supplies are limited.
This "Joy of Tech" cartoon explains what will really happen with Google glasses:
The Reality of Google Glasses
For me, he is well past his sell-by date. Can't he buy some remote island and cocoon there?
If you outlaw glass, only outlaws will have glass.
It's not the glass that is transparent. It's the person looking through it.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Tapping on a screen is not the most natural way to communicate with people. You should assign your best men to this problem to invent a solution. But before you do I have a question for you. What if we used our phones to call people and talk to them?
Seriously what is with this guy? Why is this so complicated?
seriously, if Glass takes off everyone is going to be wearing prescription-free glasses or frames, and they won't want to stick with the google-issued model - it'll become victim to fashion trends as much as regular glasses and sunglasses are, but amped up to the level of womens footwear fashion.
This is going to be huge - it's on your face all the time. Third-party frames compatible with Glass is where I'd invest my cash.
People were skilled in being fucking idiots long before smart phones.
However, offloading some memory tasks isn't necessarily a bad thing if the alternative is spending active time trying to memorise these things (I'm mainly thinking of rote-memorising facts). That time may be better spent actually actively thinking.
Then again, actually having memorised a range of information may be instrumental for novel ideas which draw on the variety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v1uyQZNg2vE
read the well stylized article::
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/22/4013406/i-used-google-glass-its-the-future-with-monthly-updates
To me it looks like it could revolutionize.
I could never get into smart phones, but this sounds way more of what I would consider "virtual reality". What I pictured in the 80s and 90s of that anyways. Its not lawnmower man, you are there in the real world. Altered states of reality.
-
The invention of writing has been blamed for the decline in our ability to remember long oral histories. Do you think we are significantly dumber because we can't remember and recite The Iliad or The Odyssey, which was originally a tale told from memory? Everything in measure, of course, but any devices that offload tasks so that we are freed up to dream up even better and more complex ideas is OK by me.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
/. : come for the advertising, stay for the ravenous neckbeards.
It's more helpful if, in the parent article, you replace "interact with other people" with "view advertisements".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Google making a shitload of money from all those "emasculated" people? :-)
And have we already reached the stage where Google tells us what to do with our bodies?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
I use "OSMpad" on "iPhone" for mapping for the wiki-style "OpenStreetMap". So it is a precise GPS enabled data input tool. How can I do in with glasses?
If I can, I do not mind. Because every time I have to stop bicycle, take out iPhone, map a building or another structure, put back smartphone into the pocket, and so on.
Can't quote it here, but the one page description of those as told by the discworld's greatest storyteller in Terry Pratchett's "Pyramids" is an amusing example of not quite remembering them.
Touching an inanimate object made of glass and plastic each morning and night is nothing new -- well before the days of smart phones (or even cell phones at all), I used to have a manual alarm clock that I'd have to set each night and turn off each morning. So this "strange intimacy" with our gadgets has been going on for 50 years or more.
Since it was a 12 hour clock, it wasn't possible to reset the alarm when it went off at 7am in the morning or else it would go off again at 7pm, so one had to set it each night.
Now my smartphone is my alarm, and it's better in that I don't have to set it at night, but it's still the first thing I touch in the morning since I have to stop the alarm.
I might buy the Glass, but only if the device connects only to my computers and does only what I want. In effect, it would be a convenient HUD, not a service. Not a bit would go outside of my LAN.
In most cases, though, I don't quite feel the need to have one on. Do I need to wear a monitor in front of me? Do I need to threaten everyone with recording of all their activities, public and semi-public? My life does not revolve around constant communication; there is specific time and place for that. The employer will probably also be not very happy that you can watch movies and read Slashdot all day long without anyone knowing it. The police will be joyful to learn that a Glass owner can see not just the road but also his email and chat - and there is no way to prove it one way or another.
I see glass as a military device more than anything right now. A simple HUD with the locations of allies overlaid on an aerial map, plus features such as IR camera and text commands. The key feature that makes glass so useful in such an instance is its hands-free nature. This would apply anywhere you are using both hands. The problem is that for most civilians it is not such a hassle to take your phone out.
It could be an equivalent of a car dashboard camera but for cycling. Cyclists wear glasses anyway to prevent mosquitoes getting into the eyes.
Permanent recording could be a safety feature for cyclists. It would make road hooligans less enthusiastic as an HD video of an accident could be played later in a judicial assembly.
Of course Brin wants everyone hard-wired to their Google account 24/7. He wants to make Google an inseparable, integral and vital part of our every day life. Glass is a step in that direction. For me, while I do use Google products all the time and however much I like my Android smartphone, I feel just fine leaving it in my pocket/on my desk most of the time. I've no desire to "see the world" through it.
Consider it a preemptive strike in the age old editor wars before someone accuses Google Glasses of violating privacy.
I have always thought that male smartphone users looked feminine. When they're in public, out of touch with what's around them, and pawing at this little thing, yeah, it doesn't give the impression that this is an alert dude that's ready to deal with the world around him. Especially when you imagine that he's looking at facebook or something.
I know that there's nothing good or bad about being feminine or not, whether or not you have testicles, but being a guy, I am kind of image conscious about how I use my phone. The same way I don't want my man-bag to look like a purse.
That Mr. Brin doesn't seem to understand the difference between the two words is not a good sign that he has carefully considered the point he wishes to make.
Do mobile devices (not just smartphones) have the potential to make face-to-face interaction less likely or desirable? Sure. Where we once needed to actually be in immediate proximity to another individual in order to sustain a meaningful dialogue or communication with them, we now have the convenience of tweeting them or posting something on their (heaven forbid) Facebook wall. We can text them, even if they are halfway around the globe. Does this necessarily decrease the quality of interaction? The most honest answer I can furnish is that it depends.
Throughout history, humans have been devising ways to make communication easier. We invented written languages, books, telegraphy, telephony, television, and the internet. We did all these things because we found it facilitated connection. Does it mean that when the telephone was invented, people started to lament that telephones were "emasculating" (sic) because they made it possible to talk to someone without being physically in the same room? That's an absurdly regressive, not to mention historically and technologically naive, view. It borders on sophistry.
Let's be clear that over-reliance on smartphones and mobile connectivity, to the point of eschewing physical interaction, is a definite phenomenon. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm an apologist for all the spoiled teens whose interactions with their peers is primarily through virtual, rather than real, means--and rack up the bills to show for it. Or that I'm excusing full-grown adults who insist on checking their feeds every 5 minutes, who can't be bothered to put their phones down for a real-life conversation in the flesh. But it is painfully obvious that Mr. Brin has an agenda here, which is to sell his company's glasses as the solution to this problem. As such, whatever legitimate criticisms he has lacks credibility because of his bias.
Moreover, there's another problem with Mr. Brin's accusations, and that is the unspoken assumption that these glasses *must* be an improvement. That is a claim that remains to be seen, because it isn't at all obvious. I, for one, would be very uneasy at the prospect of living in a society whose members are constantly recording each others' movements and activities. I suppose Mr. Brin (and Google) takes the attitude that we will simply become accustomed to this omnipresent surveillance, but I think that it is an entirely legitimate question to ask why we as a society SHOULD move in this direction in the first place. Thus far I have not seen any compelling rationale to do so.
In summary, I am distrustful of anyone who advocates for a new technology as a solution to a problem that is largely symptomatic of cultural attitudes and a lack of etiquette. Don't want your mobile devices to turn your social life into a virtual experience? The answer is not to buy the next fancy gadget, be it some silly-looking headwear or something yet to be invented, but to simply make the conscious decision to be a better person by interacting in person. And similarly there is a point at which a society needs to collectively decide for itself that it is better to experience the world first-hand, rather than through a handheld electronic device. To the extent that such a device facilitates that goal, the more power to it. That is the reason for technology--to enrich our lives, not become what we live our lives through.
You should try Mandroid - for the vigorous hetrosexual!
You're married to a thing? You Realdoll owners are creepy!
Haha, I'm reading Slashdot and watching cat videos in my Glass during a boring meeting without anyone noticing. Try doing that with your puny handhelds!
Oh shoot, they just did... the cranial sound system works pretty good, but this could still use some form of telepathy...
I go out with my partner and often see families with children come for nice meal in a nice restaurant. Mum is updating her facebook status while dad's checking ebay, Junior and his sister are toying with nintendo. Parents cant communicate with each other let alone their children. I see scenes like this all the time and I really dont think its a healthy way to live together - if we cant be social as a family unit when we have gone out to be together what hope is there for mankind?
I have no problem with people using their devices for whatever they see fit - but when they have gone out for a special occaision or for a nice meal to be a family together it just seems very broken to me.
N.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
1. Mr. Brin, you are a smart guy but I don't think emasculate means what you think it means.
2. Ironic that this lament of the non-interaction between people comes from the head of Google. Where Google's Mountain View employees work in perfect virtual isolation in their cubes and ventilated tents. Where employees who need to talk to their colleagues in the cubicle next door or right behind them in the same, shared, cubicle use IM instead of lifting their heads and opening their mouths in conversation. Google's virtual isolation culture is truly epic. One wonders who instigated and fostered this culture if not its now self-professed emasculated leaders.
If you outlaw glass, only outlaws will have glass.
"You can have my glass when you pry it from my cold, dead, bloody fingers."
--Charlton Heston
It's spelled "FRIST," as in "FRIST PSOT!" Learn to write properly before you come to post here. This is /., the land of the pedant spelling Nazis.
I hate Smartphones and after my old phone broke down, I ain't even buying a new one.
Living without a mobile phone is like living without a (annoying) stone chained to your leg.
It's measurably better quality of living.
I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
That's funny. I never considered using one of those "teaching devices" for the purpose of forcing boring meeting attendees to actually have to listen to the boring meeting. But I bet today's young urban professionals are hard-wired to withdraw and insulate even through something like that.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
If these Google glasses looked more like a regular pair of glasses / shades, people wouldn't look so conspicuously ridiculous by wearing them.
When I first got into computer for REALZ in the 90s, I let them consume me. I think that is a natural first reaction to the power of technology.
But after a while, I realized I needed a better balance in my life and learned a secret: you can choose NOT to look at the computer. Or email. Or IRC. Or IM. Or Facebook. Or slashdot (sorry).
When I hear experters fret over the dehumanizing affects of technology, I laugh. Some people just don't have enough patience. The rebalance will come to the majority soon enough. In the 50s-80s, the technology monster was TV. Before that, it was radio. Now it is smartphones. Soon it may be smart glasses or smart wrist watches.
However, being an alarmist sells papers.
Hmm.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Many folks would rather have lasers shot in their eyes than wear glasses.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
If you're tied down by your phone, then you're doing it wrong. Get a second number if you have to (i.e. GVoice) and dump everybody in there if you hate getting calls. Turn of alerts if you find them distracting.
I am the master of my phone, not the other way around. The only alerts I get are incoming calls (you know, the prime purpose) and text messages from about 6 people, all of whom I want to hear from immediately if anything important comes up (Parents, wife, daughter, two friends). Everything else is passive. If I need to look something up - it's right there. If I'm running late or have to reschedule - it's right there. If I'm stuck because someone without a phone didn't tell me hey'd be late (that inconsiderate bastard), or I just have 10 minutes to kill, I can either entertain myself or weed out my inbox so when I get back home or to work I don't have to waste more time there. I use it to jot notes down, take pictures of opportunity, and store a myriad of information that - while not critical - is convenient to have - like a running list of things to pick up when out on errands. Saves me time and gas money.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
If a smartphone is all it takes to emasculate you, well... let's just say it was hardly worth the effort.
Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
It's becoming obvious that online advertising is far less effective on the small screens. The mass transition from accessing online content from relatively larger laptop screens and desktop monitors to the smaller phone screens reduces ad space and click-through rates. The ongoing growth in the number of internet users in emerging markets can partially offset this, but the transition of the existing user base from large screens to small screens is bad for Google. Google certainly isn't going away, but that portion of their revenue will be hitting a plateau and then shrinking. Companies like FB who are almost entirely dependent on eyeballs have dim prospects going forward.
Hmmm... with the right software maybe Google glass could be WAY better than beer goggles!
Both are attempts to bring the portable computer closer and more seemlessly to your body. In a decade a full computer may be shrunk to that those form factors (decent prototypes now).
I would think the glasses, close to your eyes, ears, and mouth would eventually be the better interface.
His high school quiz bowl team beat mine, so I am going to assume he is right about this, as well.
I did it: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=emasculating
... filled with a bunch of emacs jokes.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
All you kiddies that *want* to be online 24x7 never had to work that way (says the guy who spent two years wearing one, or two, pagers 24x7x365.25).
And all that texting, like the cartoons of two folks at a table texting each other, just shows that you haven't grown up, and are *terrified* of actually talking to another human being. You'd rather imagine that they were all simulations, so that you didn't have to consider getting hurt, or hurting them.
Think you're meat*, you do.
mark "got a life in the RW"
* Check out the cyberpunk usage of the word "meat"
I don't know. A lot of phones do make people look like dorks. And act like dorks too.
The thing the submitter said, first thing touched in morning and last used at night. That's just wrong. I don't do that. I know tons of smart phone owners who don't do that. The phone doesn't control their live and they're not always checking in on it. But some people do that, and I think it's kind of sad actually. "Emasculating" is the wrong word but these people definitely are being controlled by the phone, or co-dependent.
... the last thing many people touch before going to sleep and the first thing they touch after waking.
You follow the anti-smartphone arguments down the rabbit hole and we're all naked and living in caves.
I've been using an iPhone as an alarm clock since June, 2007. Of course it is the last thing I touch (to set the alarm) and the first thing I touch (to turn off the alarm.) How is that any worse than touching any alarm clock? Next you will be telling me to wake up according to my natural rhythms like the Industrial Revolution never happened.
Checking on Facebook or Twitter is not the only use of a smartphone. At least not an iPhone. Drawing, painting, recording music and audio, photography, making movies, reading books — all proud human endeavors. Instead of needing a giant house full of hundreds of different technologies (horse hair paint brush, chemical darkroom, grand piano) I can do those things with what I keep in my pocket. And the documents I made open up on a Mac to be prepared for publishing instead of gather dust in the attic.
I'm reminded of General Jack Ripper.
I can no longer sit back and allow smart phones to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Yes, I know all of that. But it does not address the OP's point.
:-)
Looking for the meaning of emasculating . . . is gay. (Okay, let's accept that premise for a moment.)
Since there are absolutely no gay people on Slashdot
then nobody on slashdot would be looking for the meaning of emasculating.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.