Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

New submitter some old guy writes "Marcus Wohlsen writing in Wired Business makes a good case for why no amount of marketing hype will cure Google Glass of its inherent dorkiness. 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky. Think of the Bluetooth headset: it’s a really sensible way to use your phone without having to take it out of your pocket—so sensible that there’s really no reason not to keep that headset in your ear most of the time. But you don’t, do you?' He also makes an interesting comparison to the Segway debacle: 'If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure. But that transformation hasn't happened. And it won’t. Why? Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'"

Comments

Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thread closed.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[i kan reed]

Ok, so, what exactly is something nerds were using 20 years ago that "mainstream" people aren't using all the time now?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[phantomfive]

I don't know, judge for yourself.

"In its favour, if Google Glass didn’t exist, all these Silicon Valley guys would be having affairs or buying unsuitable motorbikes”

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[dzfoo]

Pocket protectors. 20-sided dice. Fanny packs. Floppy diskettes.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Russ1642]

When I see 50 somethings wearing bluetooth earpieces I'm inclined to think that in ten years they'll be wearing these goofy glasses too.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[moeinvt]

Personal computers running Linux? :-)

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which were rendered unnecessary because everyone adopted a 10-year-old nerdly thing: the smartphone. Scrawling notes: on the phone. Game playing: on the phone. File storage/transmission: on the phone. So yes, sometimes old nerd things don't become popular --- when there's a newer nerd thing to replace them.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[rtfa-troll]

Thread closed.

And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.

Someone explain to me why you can't do the same technology on mirrored glasses in a way that nobody will notice the camera? If I look on Google for "camera sunglasses" most of the results are dorky, but some begin to look quite cool (second photo; warning there may be some flash media my browser ignored).

There also seem to be a bunch of ideas for holographic contact lenses. Google glass is more of a technology demonstrator and beginning of something bigger. I don't see why it can't take off long term if they can do something useful with it.

Now if only someone could come up with a version where we could control the privacy a bit.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[__aaeihw9960]

Holy shit that's it. I knew there was something off-putting here. It's going to be the blue-tooth 'try-hard to look young' of the next ten years. Someone mod this genius up.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BenJury]

They key, like a lot of things, is with the kids. If the kids who are 15-18 embrace them it will become normal to that generation and thus the acceptability will propagate upwards as they get older. What Google has to do is make it fashionable, like Apple managed with the iPhone.

I suspect most commentators here are of the generation after such an audience and so are slightly averse to radicle new things like this. Just like my parents were to mobile phones, and I am to social media.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[tgd]

Thread closed.

And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.

I keep seeing people using that argument, for some reason. Not sure why, because that wasn't actually the case. Not even remotely. The issue with cell phones in the early 80's was the cost and the combination of size/weight/battery life.

Car phones were plenty common, and people wanted them. Sure, they were expensive. But claiming that people said they were too nerdy, or not many people wanted them, or needed them is, frankly, so far from reality the statement had to have first been made by someone who wasn't even alive at the time.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Archangel Michael]

Andoid is Linux, and by looking around at all the people using Android phones, I would say that these are "personal computers, running linux".

We've had the "year of Linux" except it wasn't on the desktop. And that is why, most people missed it.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[drakaan]

Those weren't just AR goggles, they were an assistive device for the severe vision problem the guy had and were semi-implanted.

If you're also walking around punching anyone with a cameraphone, then I guess that's consistent...not rational, mind you, but consistent.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a very specific idea of the definition of the word nerd. Everyone might not agree with that definition and some may even argue what what you described is better categorized as dorks or some other word used to categorize people instead of thinking of them as individuals.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[ahem]

> Now if only someone could come up with a version where we could control the privacy a bit.

You have complete control over the visual privacy of your face in the presence of any CCD camera: IR emitting glasses

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[fast turtle]

Fanny Packs - Strange as I see many of them in use every damn day as they serve a functional purpose. The only reason pocket protectors died out wasn't from nerds but the fact that ball point pens don't tend to leak like Fountain Pens and Yes, I still use Quill and Ink at times.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[rwa2]

All of which were rendered unnecessary because everyone adopted a 10-year-old nerdly thing: the smartphone. Scrawling notes: on the phone. Game playing: on the phone. File storage/transmission: on the phone. So yes, sometimes old nerd things don't become popular --- when there's a newer nerd thing to replace them.

This. 20 years ago I was fantasizing about having a low-profile wearable computer with internet access always attached to me in a low-profile package, so it wouldn't be too socially conspicuous.

So what does mainstream society do? Simply make it socially fashionable for everyone and their mother to walk around staring at a big unwieldy brick.

This is why nerds will never win at solving other people's problems. If you try to provide a rational smart solution, it'll be dismissed as being uncool for "trying too hard".

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[GameboyRMH]

Programming languages, virtual reality, wearable computers, CLI interfaces.

I'd say "handheld computers that aren't curated toys" if it were 15 years...

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[boristdog]

As a 50 year-old, I resent the fact that you think my cheap USB drive that I carry around on my ear with an old twist-tie is me trying to look young. It's just more convenient to carry it that way, really.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Big Hairy Ian]

This is /. what the hell do we care about the main stream? My big issue is the price & battery life :)

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[dzfoo]

Fanny packs in the mainstream? Not quite. Pocket protectors only "died out" among the nerd population--the mainstream never adopted them.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

A pair of camera glasses supposedly invented by Lady Ga Ga 2 years ago. And surprise, surprise, they haven't caught on. And you're using that as a n example FOR camera glasses?

There's a store near where I used to live, that's been selling cameras in glasses, pens, ties, transistor radios, electric plugs, etc for a couple of decades. Clearly there are some private investigators, industrial espionage operatives, stalkers and peeping toms that want this stuff. But it's really niche.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

So the future really does look like Fifth Element. Oh dear.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[cheekyjohnson]

Maybe, but I do know that it's too creepy for me.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[foobsr]

Now if only someone could come up with a version where we could control the privacy a bit.

http://www.jammer-store.com/wifi-bluetooth-jammers-blockers.html

Protect yourselves.

CC.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Cenan]

Thread closed.

And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.

I keep seeing people using that argument, for some reason. Not sure why, because that wasn't actually the case. Not even remotely. The issue with cell phones in the early 80's was the cost and the combination of size/weight/battery life.

Car phones were plenty common, and people wanted them. Sure, they were expensive. But claiming that people said they were too nerdy, or not many people wanted them, or needed them is, frankly, so far from reality the statement had to have first been made by someone who wasn't even alive at the time.

Well I do remember the 80s and the impending doom of cell phones. I also went out and bought one of the first ones. Whatever.

The difference here is that the cell phones solved a tangible problem: if you were not in your car or in your house, you were pretty much unreachable. Pagers could kind of stand in, but you'd still have to get to a phone to call back. Enter the cell phone and suddenly your grandma is texting all hours of the day.

Google glass on the other hand doesn't solve anyones problem, they deliver already available functionality (via the phone in your pocket) in a new and nerdy package.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[icebike]

And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.
 

Except that mobile phones filled an obvious need, one that had been long recognized.

Being part of the borg doesn't.

The current implementation of Google Glass is like those ridiculously large cell phones of 1973. People laughed at those too.

Google Glass will not survive in its current form. That is the only certain thing about it. But that doesn't mean it won't survive in some other form. I doubt it will always have a camera, because people won't tolerate being recorded 24/7 by everyone they encounter. People will insist you take them off when entering businesses, stores, and meetings.

It will probably revert to only being a display device, a personal HUD.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

Most Anonymous Cowards are so inadequate they don't have any opinions of their own, they cut-n-paste other people's.

http://rawmaterialformisanthropes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/i-hate-nerds.html

And some twits actually modded it up!

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[markdavis]

>"This. 20 years ago I was fantasizing about having a low-profile wearable computer with internet access always attached to me in a low-profile package, so it wouldn't be too socially conspicuous."

Didn't we all.

But did your dream include a company tracking, saving, sharing, and identifying your every move down to the square foot? Did it include handing over access to your passwords, your list of apps, your texts, your Email, your contacts, your calls, your photos, your files, and pretty much everything else to some company (and government possibly without even a warrant)?

And yet, can we imagine life without this little package? Ability to contact anyone anywhere anytime, call for help if needed, answer all our questions, guide us to where we need to go, entertain us when we have some time to kill...

There is usually a flip side to every technological advancement. The idea of strapping an internet-connected camera and mic to your head, pointed AT OTHER PEOPLE, all the time, is certainly another issue society will have to deal with. Hopefully it is more about privacy, manners, freedom, and etiquette than just fashion.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[FatLittleMonkey]

Bah! I say, not nerdy enough.

Oculus Rift plus forward facing cameras, so you never have to take them off, with a Leap controller for mid-air and any-surface input. Add a micro-projector for communicating with the surrounding the norms.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[fazig]

And the best part of it, those don't make you look dorky at all!

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[NatasRevol]

I wonder if lots of IR on your face all the time might cause you eye problems down the road.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[jampola]

I guess i'll be seeing you in your Guy Fawkes mask walking down the street. I'll be sure to wave and say "Cheeeese!"

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Narcocide]

Seconded.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[phantomfive]

Pocket protectors are the stereotypical nerd accessory, even Wikipedia picked up on that trend. The fact that you think they are normal probably says more about you than the trend in general.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

Andoid is Linux

Funny how the definition of Linux oscillates between a full OS "distribution" and just the kernel, depending on what the person's trying to prove at the time.

I'm beginning to think RMS is right about one thing. The OS should be called GNU/Linux. Or maybe even that's understating it. If Linux with Android on top is called "Android". Linux with GNU on top should be called "GNU".

So, what nerds were using 20 years ago was GNU. And the mainstream still isn't using it.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[polyp2000]

But if we apply betteridges law of headlines - then surely the answer is no?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[hodet]

AC is really schizophrenic man.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[DoctorBonzo]

Wow. Project much?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[MisterSquid]

So what does mainstream society do? Simply make it socially fashionable for everyone and their mother to walk around staring at a big unwieldy brick.

Despite that many people do so, it is decidedly not fashionable "to walk around staring at a big unwieldy brick". It's pretty much well understood being glued to a phone screen while in public is sort of pitiably goofy.

There are many obvious point of social etiquette that even otherwise thoughtful people overlook—everything from not picking one's nose in public to yielding to people who are less able. Walking around zombified by a smartphone screen is just one of those overlooked points.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Cenan]

I don't see the connection between your reply and what the OP said (which wasn't much). I guess you had something to get of your chest.

Anecdotal evidence should not be trusted, especially when the subject of research is as large a group as the one you picked up on today's crusade. Perhaps you fail to attract anything but spineless losers? Perhaps you live in a society that fosters this kind of behavior from its' nerds? I don't know, I don't care.
However what you're describing is just that; 'spineless losers'. That is a psychological trait commonly found in any group of human beings, not a distinct trait of being a nerd, and if one bothered one could probably find a book or two on alpha behavior in human groups. If one bothered...

Oh and you do of course realise the irony of raving against the internet and its provided anonymity in an AC post right?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[j_l_larson]

http://flic.kr/p/efUuQR

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[werewolf1031]

Would you like an LCD display to read your CLI interface? :)

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[CastrTroy]

But still I see very few people wearing blue-tooth headsets. And usually when I do, it's people who have just left their car. I still think it looks completely ridiculous when people are talking using a bluetooth headset. And with cars having built in bluetooth, I think I even see fewer people with the earpieces.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[interkin3tic]

Wait, products must solve a tangible problem in order to catch on? Well shit, that sucks for twitter, facebook, AND the tablet market.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BattleApple]

On the guy's blog about the McDonalds incident, he says "The eyeglass is permanently attached and does not come off my skull without special tools.", but that's the closest thing I've been able to find. Somewhere, I read that it just has electrodes stuck to his head like an ECG. Hardly implants.
As for his "severe vision problem", he says in that same post that he carries around a letter from his doctor, but never mentions a vision disorder.

http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There's a store near where I used to live, that's been selling cameras in glasses, pens, ties, transistor radios, electric plugs, etc for a couple of decades. Clearly there are some private investigators, industrial espionage operatives, stalkers and peeping toms that want this stuff. But it's really niche.

That's not just 'really niche', it's kind of a slummy niche. There are plenty of niche products, that very few people really need in anything resembling a serious way, that manage to sell pretty substantial volumes to hobbyist types once the price comes down a bit or a modestly cut-down variant becomes available(just think of the number of people wandering the world and happy-snapping with a DSLR that has never seen anything other than 'kit lens, all settings auto', or the market for black, anodized aluminum objects that are sold as 'tactical' to people who've probably lost more blood to tripping on things than to combat...) That only really happens if the niche users are in some way prestigious or 'aspirational', though.

If you have a really niche product whose niche users offer a significant marketing halo, that means you just need to bring the price down a bit, at least on the lesser models, and the wannabes are yours for the taking.

If your niche product carries the stench of pervs, creeps, and nerds who pride themselves on extreme technology dependence? Less so.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[leonardluen]

which is useless unless everyone uses it...you would especially stick out if only you and 3 other people use it

couldn't a facial recognition program notice, hmm...that must be Mr ahem with his dorky IR emitting glasses. and analysis of the brand of tinfoil used in his hat confirms it.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[sycodon]

Google Glass is Google Jumping the Shark.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[GameboyRMH]

Yes I'll just have to get some money from the ATM machine.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[leonardluen]

another point that probably supports your argument is the stigma around Bluetooth headsets, and those typically don't have cameras.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[minstrelmike]

The article itself made a distinction between nerd and dork. RTFA.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[minstrelmike]

Yup. Think beehive hairdos.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[lister king of smeg]

except it doesn't record 24/7 only when you tell it to and it only has a 5 hour battery life anyway very unlikely to be used the way you suggest.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[cayenne8]

You have complete control over the visual privacy of your face in the presence of any CCD camera: IR emitting glasses

I want to rig up a bunch of those around my license plate on my car......

:)

Fuck the speed trap cameras...

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[rtfa-troll]

A pair of camera glasses supposedly invented by Lady Ga Ga 2 years ago. And surprise, surprise, they haven't caught on. And you're using that as a n example FOR camera glasses?

No; just as an example to show that the design doesn't have to emphasise the camera bit. This is a Google choice for now and I expect that they would change it for the next generation allowing in anyone else who made glasses.

There's a store near where I used to live, that's been selling cameras in glasses, pens, ties, transistor radios, electric plugs, etc for a couple of decades. Clearly there are some private investigators, industrial espionage operatives, stalkers and peeping toms that want this stuff. But it's really niche.

Right, but those don't have any applications. Think:

• Head up display for runers; tells you how well you are doing; integrates with your heart monitoring; plans a route that will stretch you today.
• can't remember that cute girl's name. Google can. Plus, if you link into her facebook profile you will get to know whether she's dating or not. And who. And whether this is a good moment when they might just have had an argument.
• bargain/no bargain. about to buy something? Get a warning if you can get it 5% cheaper within 100 metres.

Most of these are scary/downright creepy for me. But then I'm not a great facebook lover either. In any case you can't claim they wouldn't add to most people's lives. In fact I think I'm no a roll here.

• wanna buy a girl some underwear? Have google glasses size her up. Check whether anyone else has registered her sizes
• standard; boring; watch porn videos sure nobody else can see you doing it.
• ultra creepy: most naked picture available of anyone you see off the internet
• friend's reviews of anyone you meet; judge people before they judge you

My only hope is that Google has some patents on this because "facebook glasses" would be terrible.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[whargoul]

Fitting username you have there

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[dgatwood]

Fanny packs in the mainstream? Not quite.

Sure they are. Out of the hundred or so members of my church tour group a few years back, I'd guess that there were at least a dozen fanny packs. That's pretty mainstream.

To be fair, most people just don't use them every day, but walk around the streets of any major tourist city, and you'll find people carrying them around. They're good ways to carry crap around when you're going to be walking around the city all day without going back to the hotel.

For example, I'm not even remotely a nerd (geek, yes, nerd, no), yet when I travel, I carry one around as my camera bag. It can either hold my camera and a couple of lenses or a couple of lenses and a flash without room for my camera, depending on my needs. Other folks I know use them to carry food or water around with them. Still others use tiny versions to carry their point-and-shoot cameras, foreign currency, or cell phones. And so on.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[icebike]

except it doesn't record 24/7 only when you tell it to and it only has a 5 hour battery life anyway very unlikely to be used the way you suggest.

Hint: Try to look beyond today.

Does it have an "one the air" indicator so others in the room know they are being recorded?
Do you see in your wildest dreams a solution to short battery life?
Do you think it will always look like it does today?

Look at this picture of the first Cell Phone.
Now look at your current cell phone.
Now look back at the picture.

See any difference in form or functionality? Now project similar reductions in size and additional functionality onto Google Glass.

Think beyond the end of your nose.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[idontgno]

Wrong. The goofy glasses will include the bluetooth earpiece. Or just an earpiece, if the goofy glasses integrate the phone directly. Then it'll be like All Tomorrow's Parties.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[wmac1]

It is not nerdy. It is useless for most people.

I guess I count as a nerdy person with 20 years of experience in software and networks (started as a kid with Punch cards, Fortran IV, VIC-20 and ZX-80) and a PhD in computer science and an additional degree in electronics engineering.

But it is not attractive and it feels uncomfortable and awful to me. Sorry if I disappointed you.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[freezin fat guy]

Booyeah! We got someone from the MPAA here, take your rights and then beat you up if you stand up for yourself!

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

Most of these are scary/downright creepy for me. But then I'm not a great facebook lover either.

They are creepy. And everyone on Facebook will think so too. Along with the rest of the world.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[tgd]

How well do you think twitter and facebook would be doing if you had to pay to use them?

Tablets DO solve a tangible problem: it fits well into situations where a phone is too small and underpowered, and a laptop is cumbersome and overkill.

Facebook actually solves a particularly tangible problem -- how to casually communicate with a broad set of people in an easy way. Nothing you can do in FB is stuff you couldn't do with six other sites before FB, but I sure as shit wasn't going to get my parents on them,

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[hypergreatthing]

google glass does solve a problem. When you see that hot chick walking down the street and you're like, damn, i wish i could record that. Well now you can(tm)!

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[lister king of smeg]

and the cellphone still doesn't record amd transcribe your everyword. just like the glasses will not be used for constant video recording.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Frosty Piss]

Google Glass is Google Jumping the Shark.

The phrase "jumping the shark" was passe years ago. Indeed, the web site no longer exists.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[icebike]

Says you.

I often record calls on my phone.
Probably some three letter agency does as well.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Ravaldy]

Anyhow, didn't you guys know the nerdy is the new kool!

Need or no need, my wife colors here hair 5 times a month. Does she need to? NO. Is it tangible? NO. Does it serve a purpose? Yes, it makes me poor and keeps the marketing firms running.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Anonymous Coward]

Study more science, and you'll spend less time wondering about silly things.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[lister king of smeg]

yes but it is not recording *everything* which is what people are fearing with Google glasses.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[icebike]

yes but it is not recording *everything* which is what people are fearing with Google glasses.

And how hard is that to imagine?
You can't know when it is recording, so the safe thing is to assume it always is.

After all, it's just another peripheral, and who knows how much capacity is in the pocket or the purse?

If you wouldn't allow someone to walk into your home or office with a cam corder and film you at your desk
with all your papers laying about, why would you allow them to wear Google Glasses in your
office?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[tirerim]

I keep hearing the "people won't tolerate being recorded everywhere" argument, and it seems to be demonstrably false: people are already accepting being recorded 24/7 by security cameras in an increasing number of public places. You could argue that Google Glass crosses some threshold of obviousness or ubiquity, but that's at most a matter of degree, which suggests to me that people will stop caring about it soon enough if they still care at all.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Chrontius]

Pocket protectors have been replaced by smaller, sleeker pen cases, as far as I'm concerned. The downside is they usually come with cheap promotional pens; I can't usually pick up 20 or 30 of them and give the pens back.

The upshot is it looks less like a pocket protector, and more like wow that's an expensive fountain pen.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[rtfa-troll]

They are creepy. And everyone on Facebook will think so too. Along with the rest of the world.

You say that; and I do believe you that that is what they will say too. However, their actions speak louder than their words, and when they broadcast their every little move and argument to the world, I think that you can see that in fact these people secretly like these applications.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[DaGoatSpanka]

How is this insightful? This is one of the best (worst) trolls of the year!

It's amazing how many people fall for this nonsense.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[grumpy_old_grandpa]

Totally with you, and here's the quote you're looking for:

"Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think "Linux" refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as "Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux". If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different."

Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Doesn't go far enough as the next poor sap gets nailed. I want to rig up a bunch of the multi watt ones around my license plate, with enough power output it should damage the camera

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Pocket protectors went out more than 20 years ago even with the nerd/geek culture, but MTG was just starting then so add that to the list.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[icebike]

No one has ever said it wasn't going to change.

'Its current form' == FOR DEVELOPERS, SOLD TO DEVELOPERS, MARKETED TO DEVELOPERS

Exactly my point. It won't survive in its current form. Virtually nothing does.
It will get smaller, do more useful things, and be less obvious.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[marcello_dl]

In the 80s people reasoned like:
"car phone: 3000000 Lit. (italian lira)
antenna for car phone (it was different from the one used by the car stereo) : 750000 Lit.
Ergo, I'll just buy and mount the antenna"

They see me rolling, they wandering.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Time_Ngler]

"Passe" jumped the shark years ago.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[isorox]

Andoid is Linux

Funny how the definition of Linux oscillates between a full OS "distribution" and just the kernel, depending on what the person's trying to prove at the time.

I'm beginning to think RMS is right about one thing. The OS should be called GNU/Linux. Or maybe even that's understating it. If Linux with Android on top is called "Android". Linux with GNU on top should be called "GNU".

So, what nerds were using 20 years ago was GNU. And the mainstream still isn't using it.

Sure, but I have the following foreground processes running
Chrome
Firefox
Openoffice.org
rxvt
bash
eclipse
vim
fluxbox

I believe bash is the only Gnu program there. Sure the compiler may have been gnu, and the c-library gnu, but calling it "gnu/linux" ignores the work of everyone else that makes my computer useful.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[DaGoatSpanka]

The article itself made a distinction between nerd and dork. RTFA.

Slashdot has articles? I just browse for the pictures.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Joce640k]

And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's.

Ummmm, citation needed.

As far as I remember *every* businessman I knew wanted one.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[NatasRevol]

Because infrared light might not have an impact on eye health?

Jesus, go fuck yourself.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Frosty Piss]

"Passe" jumped the shark years ago.

...Along with "lite, smooth, and oaky" Chardonnay.

But yesterday's passe is tomorrowâ(TM)s "retro cool".

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Algae_94]

It sounds like you may just want high powered lasers to hit the cameras. Perhaps just try shooting them as you go by with firearms, preferably while going at least 100 mph.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Archangel Michael]

Linux doesn't oscillate except by people who are looking for one thing only, Distribution. More specifically, Distribution running either Gnome or KDE (or other "desktop"). Those that know, know Linux doesn't require a GUI at all. OR GNU for that matter. Knowing what one is talking about is key to context, one that I'm trying to get people to realize. Android is Linux, so is Red Hat, So is WebOS, so is .....

I would also suggest that "Linux on the Desktop", the person at the console uses very little GNU ... at least directly. Calling it GNU/Linux is just as much a disservice.

How about calling it Linux/GNU/Xorg/GNOME/Chrome, or Linux/Android/Chrome since much of what I do is on the web?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[roboticbebop]

And in solving this problem it creates another even creepier one.....

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[node 3]

No, you have deliberately reversed his argument.

It's not that products need to solve a tangible problem, it's that solving a tangible problem is helpful. Glass starts off being extremely dorky. Were it to solve a problem (like bluetooth earpieces do), it would help it. The same way solving a very tangible problem helped cell phones even when they were klunky and unreliable.

And even with that benefit, bluetooth headsets, while common, are not universal. Most people never buy one, and they still look dorky. But dorky + useful enough to more or less balance out.

Glass looks horribly dorky. Every time I see a press photo with some famous person wearing them, I don't like "wow, that's so freaking cool!" like is intended, I think, "my god, even a fairly normal person looks like a total dork in glass".

I do like the overall idea, and think glass would be, if nothing else, fun. I don't think it's useful enough to overcome the dorkiness in the general population, but I do think it will catch on some. Most people will be fine with a smartphone, and perhaps a smartwatch for the instant data access Glass provides. However it turns out, I'm glad it is being tried.

I only wish it didn't cross the privacy line as blatantly as it does, though that's Google's thing, so if anyone is going to do it with the least amount of tiptoeing, it'll be them.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[snadrus]

Tablets absolutely solve the "regular PCs are too hard & breakage-prone for my email/facebook needs" opinion of most middle-class digital consumers.
Facebook (covered by peer commenter)
Twitter: I never found the use for me, and I don't use it. I understand that it revolutionized celebrity monitoring (something many people are in to).

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[node 3]

Oh, I missed this part:

the tablet market.

Tablets solve three gigantic problems (well, tablets solve two, the iPad solves three).

• 1. Provides 75-90% of the capabilities of a laptop with far less than 1/3 the bulk.
• 2. Far more convenient for most tasks. Call them the belittling 'lite' or 'consumption' tasks if you must, but they are things everyone does and quite enjoyable on a tablet.
• 3. (Primarily iPad at present, looking forward to improvements on Android at I/O) Provides a level of ease of use, security and privacy far beyond anything offered by notebooks.

I know the Slashdot retcon of technological history says that people only buy iPads because they are stupid or want to impress their friends, and not because they actually like them and find them useful. I wonder how that is supposed to explain over 19 million iPads sold last quarter. Must be a lot of dumb people with money, or something...

You'd think people here would be more likely to be familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Darinbob]

Not only that, it's far to hip and trendy to be nerdy.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[node 3]

> Now if only someone could come up with a version where we could control the privacy a bit.

You have complete control over the visual privacy of your face in the presence of any CCD camera: IR emitting glasses

Whereas before you didn't have to do anything.

Somehow, though, there are people here who will claim absolutely nothing has changed.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

Like how "Windows" can mean either just the OS or the OS plus the software ecosystem around it?

No, not even a little bit. Everyone knows that Windows is what comes in a box from Microsoft called "Windows". It may be preinstalled on a PC, and that PC may also contain crapware installed by the OEM. But no one with any knowledge calls that crapware Windows, let alone any 3rd party software installed after.

It's crystal clear what Windows is just exactly the way it isn't clear what Linux is.

English language overloads words.

We're not talking about the English language. We're talking about product names. Which are normally:
a) Defined by the person or organisation that created the product.
b) International, not English language specific.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[node 3]

Maybe that's how Glass will overcome its dorkiness barrier... By making everyone else look even dorkier. Then wearing Glass will actually look cool by comparison.

Genius!

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[snadrus]

My phone's running an OS I can completely verify & compile myself. I didn't since I got that from a 3rd-party with a reputation for no special sauce. I can still do all the things you mention and the only people with records are the phone company when using 3g/voice (something that hasn't changed from before when information came through the phone) and whoever owns sites/apps I select to interact with.

The markets are leaning away from the walled-garden devices. No part of technological advancement requires monitoring. Android's even got Tor now for all your "anonymously getting data" needs.

As for the camera situation, Eastman Kodak took that cat out of the bag over 100 years ago.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

Those that know, know Linux doesn't require a GUI at all. OR GNU for that matter. Knowing what one is talking about is key to context, one that I'm trying to get people to realize. Android is Linux, so is Red Hat, So is WebOS, so is .....

And there are people who are equally into the GNU/Linux scene and are just as knowledgeable than you who argue exactly the opposite. In fact RMS does. And I presume you accept he knows what he's talking about.

I've been taken to task by Linux people by referring to Linux when I'm talking about a distribution. And I've equally been taken to task when I'm talking about Linux the kernel. And it's all getting a bit old.

I'm beginning to suspect there are some here who argue it both ways, depending on what they are trying to prove at the time. Hence my post.

My standard is now this:
Linux - the kernel
Android - the Google product.
GNU - Desktop distributions.
Red Hat, Ubuntu etc. - Specific distributions.
KDE/Gnome etc. - Window managers.

I invite everyone to join me.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

There's no such thing as "these people". Facebook has everyone from kids to people in their 90s. From poor to millionaires. In every profession. In pretty much every country. Anyone indeed who has family and friends that they don't see every day but like o keep in touch with.

Now, are you talking from experience of Facebook, frokm news stories or from what you imagine. Because if it's what you imagine it's worthless. If it;s news stories it's the unusual stuff not the normal stuff. And if it's experience, you're talking about the people you chose to be your friends on Facebook. Which would say more about your friends than about facebook per se.

I like my friends and family, so I have a good experience there.

If someone chooses to do a creepy thing, it's because they are a creepy person. It's not because they have a Facebook account.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[BasilBrush]

Right, but when you have browsers, word processors editors and such like on Windows or OSX, you don't say they ARE Windows or OSX.

Well, maybe Windows Explorer, due to the deliberate "co-mingling". But that's the exception. MS Office is's part of Windows for example. Even if it comes preinstalled on a PC.

It seems that open source people are surprisingly vague about what's what.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[westlake]

Wait, products must solve a tangible problem in order to catch on? Well shit, that sucks for twitter, facebook, AND the tablet market.

But Twitter, Facebook, and the tablet do solve problems.

It's just that they aren't the geek's problems or problems the geek understands.

A social networking service is a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, for example, share interests, activities, backgrounds, or real-life connections.

Social networking service

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[lister king of smeg]

And all of those same arguments can be said of webcams on laptops and cameras on smart phones; yet you don't worry about them. Hell this is open source you can download the code and audit it if you want. Also from everything I have read very easy to jailbreak so you can root it and install whatever firm ware you want like cyanogen or $RandomDistro gnu-linux. the paranoia is a but over the top here lately. why are none of these fears aimed at phones that can record you everyword with no indication light that people say they would need for this?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[miroku000]

Yes

As soon as Apple releases their version of it, then it will become the new hottest fashion trend.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[miroku000]

So what does mainstream society do? Simply make it socially fashionable for everyone and their mother to walk around staring at a big unwieldy brick.

Despite that many people do so, it is decidedly not fashionable "to walk around staring at a big unwieldy brick". It's pretty much well understood being glued to a phone screen while in public is sort of pitiably goofy.

There are many obvious point of social etiquette that even otherwise thoughtful people overlook—everything from not picking one's nose in public to yielding to people who are less able. Walking around zombified by a smartphone screen is just one of those overlooked points.

Nonsense. Show me someone who does not walk around sometimes staring at their cellphone and I will show you someone who is definitely not fashionable.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[fisted]

> It will probably revert to only being a display device, a personal HUD.
Except such a HUD is fairly boring if it has no means to visually analyze your environment...

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[vlueboy]

I find it extremely creepy that while they responded badly to this, he had exactly what we are afraid of: good quality pictures / video of your environment at all times. I don't agree with the violence. It's just going to be harder to paint ourselves into corners to avoid connecting with everyone else's field of [perfectly recorded] vision. If Glass takes off, it will be like walking around trying not to step on anyone's shadow: impossible.
Here's a stray thought: What will having so much visual info do to people's social networking feeds?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[icebike]

Dude:
Im not worried about my own webcam.
(I would have thought that was obvious to .)

But people don't wander into my office with their computer and webcam running and record the contents of my desk and the confidential paper there on.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[icebike]

Have eyes. Can read.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[lessthan]

I've been looking for a place to say this. I disagree with the assertion that Bluetooth is too dorky to wear. I have a Motorola S10 headset and you can have them after you pry them off my corpse. They loop around my ears and look like behind-the-head headphones without a cord. Bluetooth earpieces are simply a shitty form factor. Bluetooth is a great solution that just needed to find the right look.

I admit, the Google Glasses control scheme seems dumb to me. I'd rather have a hand remote, maybe the size of a car key fob.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

Facebook actually solves a particularly tangible problem -- how to casually communicate with a broad set of people in an easy way.

Email had already solved that, plus users didn't have to all be on the same network, use a particular client, give up their privacy, and so forth.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[SeaFox]

Wait, products must solve a tangible problem in order to catch on? Well shit, that sucks for twitter, facebook, AND the tablet market.

The tangible problem there was the Internet was becoming a more and more trendy communication medium but there are a lot of people too stupid or lazy to learn how to use email clients or maintain a personal computer. A tablet solves the hardware side by giving them a portable, easy to transport device and apps give them prepackaged software that generally does not suffer the same issues PC software does because the hardware it's built for is more limited.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Dr Max]

Google's version of a hud is dorky, but the tech can easily be made to look cool and be natural. Just make them look like normal glasses. I hate to say it (because i some what despise them), but apple will bring out a nicer looking version that will fit in.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[fisted]

And how exactly does this make a 'blind' HUD useful? What is it to display, the time and perhaps your mailbox status? Geez.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[icebike]

And how exactly does this make a 'blind' HUD useful? What is it to display, the time and perhaps your mailbox status? Geez.

It knows exactly where you are, which direction you are facing and which of your friends you are near. It can give you the menu, phone number and hours of the restaurant you are looking at, it can show your driving route, eta, and current speed without taking your eyes off the road, complete with traffic and weather conditions.

I take it you don't own a smartphone, and have never played with any of the virtual reality apps. Yet you feel competent to pontificate on how useless it would be without a camera!

In fact having a camera on board adds very little usability, and gets you kicked out of many private or sensitive areas.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[bogjobber]

I can certainly imagine life without iOS, if that's what you mean.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[node 3]

I've been looking for a place to say this. I disagree with the assertion that Bluetooth is too dorky to wear.

I never said they were. I just said they are dorky. That doesn't preclude non-dorky ones either. But, regardless of how dweebish they look, they provide enough utility that people wear them in spite of how they look. This also doesn't preclude people finding "dorky" to be appealing, or even the right combo of personal style and industrial design where the headset could look cool (as lame as this is, I imagine the Beats by Dre bluetooth headphones would be fairly low on the dork scale).

Glass is even worse than that, quite possibly without a concomitant increase in utility.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[JabberWokky]

And pagers, smartphones, laptops and computers. Which would only have about five customers. Then the PC, which would only have about 250k sales in the first five years. The videogame industry was "dead" when the NES came out, and videogames are only for children. And so are movies about comic book characters. And cartoons on television.

It has nothing to do with "Nerdy". Society simply shifts focus: Calvin Klein revolutionized the prosaic jeans and men's underwear market and turned them into something people would pay decent money for. Popular foods, fashion and social conventions are always changing. Food suddenly starts getting delivered, and a few years later, nobody thinks anything of it. There were newspaper articles warning people never to buy anything off the web, and how internet retail was a fad. Now those newspapers are websites and sending bills to subscribers via email.

Of course people can easily accept Google Glasses, plus the dozens of other companies making them. We got used to the Walkman, and jamming small speakers next to your eardrums and blocking out the outside is far more strange and alienating. Yet it's still common today, through 30 years of changes in what those headphones or earbuds plug in to.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[futuresheep]

http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-Headphones/en/p/MDR1RBT

Bluetooth, not dorky, they handle music, our corporate voice chat, and phone calls. Sound FANTASTIC. Best headphones I've ever taken into the datacenter. :-)

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Luckyo]

Facebook and twitter addressed a tangible problem inherent to communication between groups of people. There is a reason why "ordinary people" adapted them en masse. It solved a communication problem for them. Nowadays, instead of having to call many people, they just post it on their facebook or twitter.

Tablets are another story entirely.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[tgd]

Facebook actually solves a particularly tangible problem -- how to casually communicate with a broad set of people in an easy way.

Email had already solved that, plus users didn't have to all be on the same network, use a particular client, give up their privacy, and so forth.

And yet, it didn't. Because its point-to-point, doesn't handle media well, is plagued by spam.

Re: Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, exactly. That's the only killer feature of Google Glass. And it's one you can find in creepy spy glasses that cost one fifth as much.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[uninformedLuddite]

You can get an aerosol can of stuff that makes the plate so reflective(or something) that the flash screws up the picture.

Re: Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[AudioEfex]

Not to mention, pictures of them didn't float up to the top of your email box with whatever they are currently (wishing the world to see) what they are doing, reminding you of them or allowing you to easily locate other people you know and easily contact them (browsing a friends list). It's a stupid analogy. While I would not say Facebook solved a "problem", it filled a need we didn't know we had, which was caused by another advance. The Internet opened up the world of communication in such a way that it was very easy to lose touch with those real life networks (of which many of us have many and lose touch with - from old workplaces, schools, etc.). Facebook may give an artificial sense of the local closeness at times, but it can be an amazing tool to do so. For the average person, it lets them plan barbecues and social activities and keep up with people they may never have been able to before. Are there fuck-tards on Facebook and people who misuse it or are disturbed by it? Sure, but same can be said for just about anything useful. I think some people are a little too over-zealous in their passion for guns, but on the other hand - I'm kind of glad they exist because a lot of the time they do offer protection just in general, mostly when they are it used (imagine a world where police officers had to use only knives and fists to keep law and order). My mom has been on Facebook only for the first time recently, and she has found friends she has not seen in thirty years, a way to connect to her friends in a new way that's a lot more convenient than phone calls, and she helped solve a murder (no joke, LOL). I spend maybe fifteen minutes a month on Facebook these days, but it's still so valuable. I wanted to do a faux painting style on a wall in my house, so I looked up an acquaintance of mine who I hadn't seen in years for a little advice because awhile back I noticed in a past job they had done it professionally. I never knew that. Not only did I get my advice, but I reconnected with someone who may go from acquaintance to friend. Since they live fifteen states away, I may have never communicated with them again without Facebook. And shit like that happens every day. Oh, wow, thread drift. I just can't stand FBwhines from people who either can't get any friends or are too stupid to know how to avoid the negatives of FB and reap the benefits of the positives. As to GoogleGlass, I agree it is really no different that what is already out there. I've recorded shows on my iPhone ($350 a ticket, and I didn't copy it for anyone else - I feel ok with that LOL), taken pics a little on the down low (usually of bumper stickers I want to share with my friends). It's it hard. I always find that kids "Spy" stuff in the toy aisles fun to look at - as I played spy as a little kid a lot. I was all abut classic 30's and 40's spy movies. It's kind of amazing to see what they make for kids today, from mirror glasses (I bought one as a joke gift when it was on clearance for $3), cameras in toy helicopters, listening devices, and....video recording sunglasses. And they look more like regular sunglasses than GoogleGlass. You can wire them up to some watch to get extra recording time. Sure they are crappy VGA images probably (the package doesn't really tell you) but they work. They even have a Barbie doll down with a camera in her cleavage that one could easily disguise. GoogleGlass is just bringing out the paranoia in people who weren't smart enough to be paranoid in the first place. Hey! I just turned that thread drift back on itself, since that pretty much sums it up about Facebook, too.

Re: Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[AudioEfex]

(The above mangled reply walloftext is due to first time posting on a tablet LOL, guess that one hasn't quite solved that problem yet ;-) )

Not to mention, pictures of them didn't float up to the top of your email box with whatever they are currently (wishing the world to see) what they are doing, reminding you of them or allowing you to easily locate other people you know and easily contact them (browsing a friends list). It's a stupid analogy.

While I would not say Facebook solved a "problem", it filled a need we didn't know we had, which was caused by another advance. The Internet opened up the world of communication in such a way that it was very easy to lose touch with those real life networks (of which many of us have many and lose touch with - from old workplaces, schools, etc.).

Facebook may give an artificial sense of the local closeness at times, but it can be an amazing tool to do so. For the average person, it lets them plan barbecues and social activities and keep up with people they may never have been able to before. Are there fuck-tards on Facebook and people who misuse it or are disturbed by it? Sure, but same can be said for just about anything useful. I think some people are a little too over-zealous in their passion for guns, but on the other hand - I'm kind of glad they exist because a lot of the time they do offer protection just in general, mostly when they are it used (imagine a world where police officers had to use only knives and fists to keep law and order).

My mom has been on Facebook only for the first time recently, and she has found friends she has not seen in thirty years, a way to connect to her friends in a new way that's a lot more convenient than phone calls, and she helped solve a murder (no joke, LOL). I spend maybe fifteen minutes a month on Facebook these days, but it's still so valuable. I wanted to do a faux painting style on a wall in my house, so I looked up an acquaintance of mine who I hadn't seen in years for a little advice because awhile back I noticed in a past job they had done it professionally. I never knew that. Not only did I get my advice, but I reconnected with someone who may go from acquaintance to friend. Since they live fifteen states away, I may have never communicated with them again without Facebook. And shit like that happens every day.

Oh, wow, thread drift. I just can't stand FBwhines from people who either can't get any friends or are too stupid to know how to avoid the negatives of FB and reap the benefits of the positives.

As to GoogleGlass, I agree it is really no different that what is already out there. I've recorded shows on my iPhone ($350 a ticket, and I didn't copy it for anyone else - I feel ok with that LOL), taken pics a little on the down low (usually of bumper stickers I want to share with my friends). It's it hard. I always find that kids "Spy" stuff in the toy aisles fun to look at - as I played spy as a little kid a lot. I was all abut classic 30's and 40's spy movies. It's kind of amazing to see what they make for kids today, from mirror glasses (I bought one as a joke gift when it was on clearance for $3), cameras in toy helicopters, listening devices, and....video recording sunglasses. And they look more like regular sunglasses than GoogleGlass. You can wire them up to some watch to get extra recording time. Sure they are crappy VGA images probably (the package doesn't really tell you) but they work. They even have a Barbie doll down with a camera in her cleavage that one could easily disguise.

GoogleGlass is just bringing out the paranoia in people who weren't smart enough to be paranoid in the first place. Hey! I just turned that thread drift back on itself, since that pretty much sums it up about Facebook, too.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Ol Olsoc]

I keep seeing people using that argument, for some reason. Not sure why, because that wasn't actually the case. Not even remotely. The issue with cell phones in the early 80's was the cost and the combination of size/weight/battery life.

Car phones were plenty common, and people wanted them. Sure, they were expensive.

These things were only nerdy when Hams used them, and we called them hanidi-talkies. After the mainstream adopted them, they were awesome.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

[Archangel Michael]

GNU is not a desktop. It is the shell (cmd line) tools that access the kernel space. From Wikipedia "The system's basic components include the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU C library (glibc), and GNU Core Utilities (coreutils), but also the GNU Debugger (GDB), GNU Binary Utilities (binutils), the bash shell and the GNOME desktop environment."

Since one does not have to go into GNOME on Linux systems, GNU is everything underneath. Which goes back to where the user lives. If Android is just a Google Product, is it Linux or not? Is it GNU? Or is it, Linux/Android the same way that RMS wants it called GNU/Linux (which should be Linux/Gnu).

Yes.

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Betteridge's law of headlines is way off on this one.

Re:Yes.

[poetmatt]

it's a "begging the question" troll, so I hope it's not a surprise that a headline based on a flawed premise results in a flawed response.

Google glass may fail, or take off. It's a bit early to know for sure, but considering these random anonymous first time submitted with all the google glass gloom it's clear that there are no facts abound. It's all hypotheticals and is thankfully debunked by a comment with over 1800 upvotes on wired.

Today is not next week...

[Frosty Piss]

Marcus Wohlsen writing in Wired Business makes a good case for why no amount of marketing hype will cure Google Glass of its inherent dorkiness.

And walking around glued to your Smart Phone doesn't? Remember when hands-free Blue Tooth ear thingies came out? Tell me that's not dorky, walking around talking to yourself...

Yes, today it is. But being tied to your mobile device (even *having* a mobile device) use to be very nerdy. In time it will be "nerdy" *not* to have a some type of Intertube connected HUD on your eyeball. Eventually there will be implants and the data will be âoeprojectedâ directly into your brain.

Besides, we all know that "nerds" actually set the tech style trends. There will be a critical mass point, and weâ(TM)ll start seeing these things for sale at the Big Box stores.

Re:Today is not next week...

[jythie]

If we are going to use mobile phones as a counter example, then Google should start marketing the glasses to teenage girls. That is what pulled cell phones out of the 'niche, geek, and executive' market and into the mainstream.

Re:Today is not next week...

[phantomfive]

Let's be honest, walking around staring at your phone is nerdy too. So is pulling out your phone at lunch, and yet a lot of otherwise 'cool' people do both those things. Wearing sagging pants is incredibly dorky.

If the things provide actual, real benefit to a lot of people, then soon everyone will be wearing them. If they don't, then they won't catch on. Stylishness is a side-issue in this game. If it's useful, it will become stylish. Like a codpiece.

Re:Today is not next week...

[smooth wombat]

Let's be honest, walking around staring at your phone is nerdy too.

No, it's not. It's annoying. People can't pay attention to where they're walking when looking down, walk slower than other people thereby causing obstructions and generally make asses of themselves as they stare at the small screen looking at whatever is so important to them that they feel the need to interrupt other people.

It's also very anti-social if you're sitting with people and instead of talking to you, their heads are buried in their laps.

Then again, nerds are supposed to be anti-social so this just goes along with it.

Re:Today is not next week...

[GameboyRMH]

The average joes just get dumbed-down knockoffs of the nerds' tools, which then either become a niche product or a historical footnote.

Re:Today is not next week...

[boristdog]

Hmm...I'm trademarking iCodpiece before anyone gets their hands on it.

Re:Today is not next week...

[GameboyRMH]

Hardly the same thing,. cell phones were seen as a cool status symbol and not nerdy at all, they were just horrifically expensive. What brought them into the mainstream was lower prices.

Re:Today is not next week...

[rwa2]

Heh, speaking of anti-social... I really had no interest in Google Glass until I read about all of the people trying to ban them.

But technically, there doesn't seem to be much I could do with Google Glass that I couldn't do with a cellphone in a decent car / bike mount. Or do better with one of those GoPro Hero headcams. Maybe once Glass has the battery power to record all the time, so I can search and scroll back later to see where I put my keys, it'd be a different story.

I'm hoping the technology makes fully-immersive VR headsets better / more affordable someday, though.

Re:Today is not next week...

[Threni]

No, it was drug dealers and suits, then nerds.

Re:Today is not next week...

[laejoh]

Tell me that's not dorky, walking around talking to yourself...

Hey, sometimes even an expert needs an expert's opinion!

Re:Today is not next week...

[Frosty Piss]

Wearing sagging pants is incredibly dorky.

As are "skinny jeans" on males.

Re:Today is not next week...

[phantomfive]

Those are sexy.

Re:Today is not next week...

[schlachter]

If the celebs all wear it and the movies and tv shows show people with it as well, people will start accepting it.

Re:Today is not next week...

[metamarmoset]

iCod?

Re:Today is not next week...

[ducomputergeek]

The ear piece thing had nothing to do with dorky, it had all to do with making the impression on people that you were somehow IMPORTANT. So important that you had to be reached 24/7 by your phone. Most of the people I saw walking around with them were salesmen of some kind whether it be real estate agents and stock brokers being the worst offenders I remember. Maybe that was just where I was living at the time as well.

The people I knew who were actually important detested the things. Anyone that's been in upper ranks of corporate management learns to detest the phone. I know at the last company I worked at a CXX position the only time my phone rang was because there was a problem.

Too caught up on appearances

[ZorinLynx]

I think society would be a better place if people were less worried about "dorkiness" and more worried about being practical.

Another example is fanny packs. They're incredibly convenient for carrying random crap around, but because society has deemed them "dorky", nobody wants to wear them.

Heck, men can't even carry a small bag around with them because it will be deemed a "purse".

Why are we so caught up, as a society, on such idiotic things? We should just do what is convenient and works and not make fun of each other over it.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[dzfoo]

You should wear your fanny pack wit pride, and ignore what we say behind your back. Heck, put on camouflage cargo-pants and a pocket protector. We won't mind, really.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[evilRhino]

Social stigma exists to keep bad behavior in check. Also, there is nothing wrong with messenger bags or satchels. If you are scared to wear Google googles because someone might make fun of you, you probably shouldn't wear them.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[RoTNCoRE]

Agreed. Also, I remember the 80's when the select few people who had cell phones/car phones where seen as self important douches. Now everyone is a self important douche with a cellphone!

Just like cellphones, the glasses will become less intrusive.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[i kan reed]

Backpacks are more acceptable. The set of things that don't fit into my pockets that don't justify a backpack: sunscreen. I can literally think of nothing else.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[ArcadeMan]

Then don't go outside. Problem solved!

Next!

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[donaggie03]

I spent a good number of years as a college student, both undergrad and grad, and carried a backpack with me all the time. I've continued to carry a backpack even after graduation, and no one has ever given me a dirty look, much less said anything to me about it. I probably wouldn't take a backpack into a bar, but I do take one just about everywhere else.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[moeinvt]

I agree with the premise. I'd like to see people wear surgical masks during flu season when they're using mass transit. Americans are just too "cool" for something that practical however.
Maybe something really nasty will come along and change that.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, men can't even carry a small bag around with them because it will be deemed a "purse".

It is a purse! And why would a man need one? Men don't menustrate, which is the whole reason woman carry purses; they need to carry pads or tampons because they never know when they'll start bleeding, and because they always carry purses, much women's clothing has no pockets. Men's clothing does, which is where men carry random crap around. On the few occasions you might want to carry a bunch of things you just carry a plastic or paper bag, or a sachel, briefcase, or suitcase. I have a sachel for my notebook, but the sachel seldom used, only when I need to carry its power brick or other accessories.

Attention smartphone developers: Men don't carry purses! We have no need of purses. Give me a smartphone the size of the old original Razr! I'm not carrying around a bag just to keep a phone in, and I'm not wearing a damned holster.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[myth24601]

Heck, men can't even carry a small bag around with them because it will be deemed a "purse".

I know someone who carries a gun bag around as a man purce. It's all about how you pull it off if you don't want to look nerdy.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[gnasher719]

Agreed. Also, I remember the 80's when the select few people who had cell phones/car phones where seen as self important douches. Now everyone is a self important douche with a cellphone!

Read many years ago: "Thirty percent of the population fear that using a cellphone might give you brain cancer. Seventy percent hope it does".

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[schlick]

I prefer my tactical man purse http://www.amazon.com/UTG-Multi-Functional-Tactical-Messenger-Black/dp/B002BJBIRW

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[kryliss]

Gotta love backpacks. Able to hold 50 sets of armor, 100 weapons, several hundred thousand gold, all equipment needed and dead party members when you are on your way to a priest for a raise dead spell. :)

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[fast turtle]

and yet I as a man carry a purse quite often. It does help though that I'm also carrying a Poniard and Sword with that purse so people tend not to make comments about it.

thankfully, I'm not one who gives a damn about fashion, instead preferring functionality and ease of use over it, thus I not only carry a purse when appropriate but I also use a so called "fanny pack" though I'm finding the better solution is one of the messenger bags. Fills the purse/fanny pack space issue quite nicely.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[fast turtle]

I actually find a purse more convenient then my fucking pockets. Hell I'm pushing for unisex clothing that doesn't have pocktes to begin with so folks have to use a purse. Then we can have more bomb scares and such when someone forgets their purse/breifcase/backpack/fanny-pack or other shit. My purse/messenger bag are made from ballistic grade materials and are actually rated to protect against small arms (.45 caliber/10mm max). Fashionalbe they aint but the damn thing fills it's purpose quite well while giving me the room to carry stuff w/o having it in a pocket that's either to fucking tight or to fucking small for anything. Hell even shirt pockets aren't long enough to hold a usable pen anymore so why have em?

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[sticks_us]

Don't forget your rations. Make sure you bring iron ones--and a lot of 'em, especially for wilderness adventures.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Fanny packs are very susceptible to pickpockets, So I won't wear one for that reason. Purses suck, I don't want to carry one because they aren't efficient, IMHO. Other than that, I'd agree with the attitude: do what you need to, don't care about how you look.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[minstrelmike]

After the Boston Bombing, I wonder how much longer backpacks will be acceptable. Men used to wear hats all the time until JFK exited Air Force One one day without a cap and that was it for the American haberdashery biz.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[minstrelmike]

I started carrying a purse 40 years ago in high school.Vice principals were not allowed to search girlz purses so they couldn't search mine either.
And I know of menstruating women who don't carry purses. Perhaps you've spent too much time putting your own Razor in and out of its own holster ;-)

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[meta-monkey]

Maybe I just don't notice or don't care. I carry a messenger bag all the time and can't remember anyone ever giving me shit about it.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[pnutjam]

Also, there is nothing wrong with my purse.. er.. I mean, satchel.

//fixed that for you...

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[Coren22]

My purse/messenger bag are made from ballistic grade materials and are actually rated to protect against small arms (.45 caliber/10mm max)

Links? I can't see many bags being able to do that. Body armor that can protect against small arms uses ceramic plates or many layers of cloth, not just ballistic nylon.

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[SolitaryMan]

Dude, with UID

Re:Too caught up on appearances

[SolitaryMan]

Slashdot ate the rest of my comment :(

What I wanted to say is that with UID < 50k you should be old enough to stop caring about shit like this gazillion years ago.

Isn't it cool to be a nerd now?

[kruach aum]

Oh wait, no it's not, which anything actually nerdy, like google glass, will instantly demonstrate. Let the irrelevant battle over terminology ("Oh but this is not nerdy, it's DORKY") begin!

possibly, but smartphones caught on

[Trepidity]

In the 1990s you looked pretty dorky pulling a PalmPilot out of your pocket to browse the internet on, but it seems reasonably widely accepted nowadays. I mean, it still looks dorky, but it's mainstream anyway. Is an eyepiece one step too far to make that transition? Maybe, but I wouldn't have predicted the ubiquitous public use of smartphones, either (I would imagine people would have them, but not that they'd be willing to walk down the street typing on them).

Re:possibly, but smartphones caught on

[BetterSense]

I'm old enough to remember the pre-cellphone days...and I actually remember thinking "nobody is going to carry a phone with them all the time; who needs to talk on the phone that much that they would carry a phone everywhere they go, that would be so self-important that people will be embarrassed, I mean who's going to just whip out their phone wherever they are and start talking to someone, what a dork".

I also thought that nobody would ever use bluetooth headsets, for the same reason.

In 10-15 years, people will probably read these old /. posts and they will sound just as out-of-touch as my prediction that nobody would need to carry a phone with them.

Re:possibly, but smartphones caught on

[Bigby]

That is a very good point. However, it is still rude to pull out a smartphone while you are speaking to someone.

The reason earpieces ran into issues was because it is rude to be wearing it when you are not using it. How do I know you aren't talking on it vs talking to me? It would be like someone carrying a phone to their ear all day. When you see someone put a phone up to their ear, your expectation is that they are using it. It just one big confusing mess when you are wearing it all the time.

Google Glass will hit a similar wall. It is simply rude to be in a position to pay attention to something else when in physically communicating with someone else.

Re:possibly, but smartphones caught on

[Bigby]

If you pull it out for a mere 1 second. Most of the time, it would be akin to looking at a watch for several minutes at a time. It says "I would rather stare at my watch for minutes than acknowledge you".

Re:possibly, but smartphones caught on

[jader3rd]

I'm old enough to remember the pre-cellphone days...and I actually remember thinking "nobody is going to carry a phone with them all the time; who needs to talk on the phone that much that they would carry a phone everywhere they go, that would be so self-important that people will be embarrassed, I mean who's going to just whip out their phone wherever they are and start talking to someone, what a dork". I also thought that nobody would ever use bluetooth headsets, for the same reason. In 10-15 years, people will probably read these old /. posts and they will sound just as out-of-touch as my prediction that nobody would need to carry a phone with them.

The problem could be your username.

Re:possibly, but smartphones caught on

[Solandri]

In the 1980s, I was considered dorky for telling all my friends about this Internet thing, and how they should all check with their school to see if they could get an email address. By 2000, if you didn't have an email address, you were behind the times and a technological outcast.

Whether or not something is dorky is almost completely based on how fashionable it is. Speaking objectively, neckties are dorky. They serve absolutely no purpose, are an impediment to many activities, yet are required to fit in with many professions. Why? Because "everyone else wears them." That's really what it boils down to. If only nerds use Glass, then it will be considered dorky (like pocket protectors). If all the cool kids start to use it, then it will be considered fashionable. All you have to do is look at old movies and yearbooks to see how capricious this determination can be. The list of things which were considered fashionable at the time but we now consider silly include beehive hairstyles, horn-rimmed glasses, tail fins on cars, flower-print fonts, disco suits, tight shorts on guys, hot colors, etc. You can see even more if you go back to clothing styles from previous centuries. There's a lot of stuff which becomes mainstream not because it's useful or sensible, but merely because "everyone else wears it."

Problem is....

[camperdave]

The problem is, nobody wants to wear glasses, even people who need them for vision correction. That's why contacts were invented, and laser vision correction. So why, oh why, would we ditch glasses, only to wear different glasses.

Re:Problem is....

[donaggie03]

The problem is, nobody wants to wear glasses, even people who need them for vision correction. That's why contacts were invented, and laser vision correction. So why, oh why, would we ditch glasses, only to wear different glasses.

Because normal glasses imply that your eyes are faulty and people don't like announcing thier flaws in such an obvious way if they could help it. Because normal glasses imply you do a little bit too much book readin', so you obviously need to be picked on. Conversely, Google Glass doesn't try to correct a physical impairment you have, so it isn't really a fair comparison.

Re:Problem is....

[MozeeToby]

First, while I hated my glasses growing up I have no problem at all with them now. I suppose if laser correction were cheaper than glasses I'd probably go for it but baring that I actually like my glasses just fine thanks. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

More importantly, why would we ditch glasses just to wear different glasses? Well, why did we (as a species) wear glasses in the first place? Because they gave people something they didn't otherwise have: clear vision. So glasses are annoying but clear vision made it worth the annoyance. Does Google Glass offer something to make the annoyance worthwhile? I don't know... in their present incarnation probably not, at least not for people who wouldn't wear glasses anyway. But I personally think people are seriously, seriously underestimating what can be done with an always on, always visible device with a camera that sees everything you see. In 10 years what a system like Google Glass can do could easily make the annoyance of wearing the device worthwhile and that's assuming the device keeps the current form factor, and there's no reason to assume it wouldn't be smaller and less obvious by then.

Re:Problem is....

[Dynedain]

Except there's a huge market for very expensive designer glasses (most of which can't hold the specialized lenses required by people who's vision is too bad for laser correction or contacts). And, there's a big market for designer glasses with FAKE LENSES, especially among the hipster crowd.

I have no problem with my glasses. They're a fashion accessory that happens to simultaneously serve a real need. I really love the design of my frames, and consider them a part of expressing my style just as other people do with watches.

Re:Problem is....

[gewalker]

I have bad eyes, I wore glasses from age 10 to 18. I wear contacts now. Why? Comfort and convenience.

Contacts don't get require cleaning multiple times per day, they don't fog or frost over when you come in from the cold, don't get broken when playing sports, don't make your ears and nose sort from rubbing (even when properly fitted due to heavy lenses), don't have a limited field of vision. Looking nerdy is way down on the list of why not to wear glasses. Other people don't find the benefits of contacts / lasik surgery compelling for a variety of reasons and so continue to wear glasses.

Some glasses are even considered attractive -- think Sarah Palin's famous glasses.

However, if Google glasses provide a substantial benefit to users, they will wear them (just like corrective lenses) regardless of what other's think.

Re:Problem is....

[schlick]

I hated and still hate wearing glasses. I wear contacts now. Glasses get dirty, sweaty, have blind spots, and generally suck. I don't love contacts, but until I can afford surgery I'll take them. Google glass wouldn't seem to have any of the problems I see with regular glasses. The seem to do what they were intended to do quite well. As soon as they are for sale I'm buying them.

Re:Problem is....

[synaptik]

Say what? Then please explain why any semi-attractive woman who dons a pair, instantly becomes twice as hawt.

Re:Problem is....

[Threni]

> Some glasses are even considered attractive -- think Sarah Palin's famous glasses.

LOL!

Re:Problem is....

[moxsam]

Glasses, normal or Google, have to be worn in order to fulfill their function. And wearing glasses no matter how expensive they are is more uncomfortable than not wearing glasses. The same reason many people can't seem to like 3D cinema, they simply don't like wearing glasses.

Re:Problem is....

[moxsam]

Maybe that's why nobody likes hipsters?

Re:Problem is....

[j-beda]

The problem is, nobody wants to wear glasses, even people who need them for vision correction. That's why contacts were invented, and laser vision correction. So why, oh why, would we ditch glasses, only to wear different glasses.

Last year on a Freakonomics podcast I learned that in the US, something like 30-40% of non-sunglasses eye-wear has lenses with no correction. Glasses are fashionable now.

I can't find any references, so maybe it is bogus.

Re:Problem is....

[nickscalise]

Because normal glasses imply you do a little bit too much book readin', so you obviously need to be picked on.

But Google Glass implies you are cool and do not do too much book readin'? LOL

Re:Problem is....

[Agent0013]

And wearing glasses no matter how expensive they are is more uncomfortable than not wearing glasses.

That's just a little bit short sighted there. I find sunglasses much more comfortable than being blinded by the sun. Some people might find glasses more comfortable that contacts if they irritate their eyes.

Re:Problem is....

[excelsior_gr]

Not true. Where I work almost everyone wear glasses. I'm sure they could use contact lenses if they wanted to, or do laser surgery. But they don't choose to. And they are ALL nerds to the bone. Coincidence?

Re:Problem is....

[camperdave]

Ask them if they WANT to wear glasses. I don't. However, I find contacts too finicky and time consuming; and laser surgery too risky. So there is no real alternative. However, do I WANT to wear glasses?... No.

Re:Problem is....

[vlueboy]

Interestingly, your post made me think that google glasses might be a foot in the door techwise for something 100 times dorkier and less public: Virtual Reality Googles.

Those guys playing Temple Run today don't yet realize some augmented reality version may be coming to glasses near them

The 3D is cheap
The immersive stereo view is built into the nature of glasses
The GPS and compasses are already in all smartphones and there's several apps that act like smart HUDs.
It's portable and more natural than a headset, and if you [Google] builds it, [someone] will come with implementations.

I just don't want to see people looking like druggies when they extend their hands to touch things that are floating in their HUD. The eerie effect of talking into thin air left Behind by bluetooth is already sad enough

The Value of Summaries

[bill_mcgonigle]

so sensible that there's really no reason not to keep that headset in your ear most of the time

OK, this article is by a person who does not understand the value of hearing things as they exist in the real world.

Next story.

First Post

[PPH]

And I ran into it with my Segway.

Seriously, if everyone (or even a significant fraction of the population) rode one of these, pedestrians would be scattering in terror. Even the local mall, whose security people used to ride these, largely stopped. There were too many near misses (and a few collisions) where the incompatibilities between these modes of transportation conflicted.

Re:First Post

[Sique]

I don't love cars. I actually don't own one. But I won't never buy a Segway. If I have to drive during the job, there is a company provided car. If I have to get somewhere fast in town, I use the bicycle - much faster than a Segway, and much cheaper. And with a range many times as large - I've done day trips up to 150 miles. And if it breaks, I can fix it myself easily. All parts are standard parts, I just go to the next bicycle store and get a replacement.

The Segway fills a market niche I've never visited so far.

Re:First Post

[gutnor]

Also, that thing costed a fortune and had more drawback that benefit. There are plenty of better transportation mechanism that are just better suited for real life.

That is the thing about this article. It disregards real life constraint to create a self-made nerdiness problem. Bluetooth handset are practical for voice communication. The problem is that most of the time that you have your phone with you, you are not phoning (and even less with smartphone). People don't carry a bluetooth headset on their ear for the same reason they don't keep their umbrella open all day in case it rains. The thing is, if you keep your headset in your bag/pocket, that removes a lot of the interest of having a headset in the first place.

Google Glass won't work if you need to carry them with you the whole day but they are only useful exceptionally. We will have to see if there is a killer application, and no a live stock ticker or real time meteo widget is not interesting the masses.

Re:First Post

[camperdave]

And I ran into it with my Segway.

Seriously, if everyone (or even a significant fraction of the population) rode one of these, pedestrians would be scattering in terror. Even the local mall, whose security people used to ride these, largely stopped. There were too many near misses (and a few collisions) where the incompatibilities between these modes of transportation conflicted.

Besides, why would I spend money on a device where I cannot carry any cargo, or passengers; where I am at the whim of the weather; a device which only travels at most 20km/h; where I have to stand for the entire commute - all for the price of a used car?

As a commuter vehicle Segways are perfect replacements for unicycles.

Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

"They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'"

And the rational ones too.

Segways?

[ArcadeMan]

If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure.

If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live but our daily commutes would take two to five times longer. We won't even talk about having Segways all over the icy and heavy snowed streets in the winter.

Re:Segways?

[admdrew]

Ugh yeah, I wish people would stop using Segway as an example of useful innovation. The technology behind them is interesting, but as a whole they failed to actually improve transportation in any fashion.

Re:Segways?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wanted everyone to ride around on something to make their cities more livable you'd have them ride around on bicycles. Optionally, electric bicycles / mopeds. Sure, you'd still have winter to deal with. But even during the nicest parts of the year, not Segways, agreed.

Re:Segways?

[tacokill]

No, if we were all riding around on Segways, someone would have crashed by now and skinned a knee. In response, a class action suit will have begun and sued the maker of X part on the Segway (as well as Segway itself) and progress will have stopped.

Don't you know the drill? Anything that is more risky than what we are already doing is to be shunned and sued out of existence. Progress or "leaps forward for mankind" don't matter anymore

Re: Segways?

[UnknowingFool]

'If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure."

I don't know where you live but replacing the car with a Segway isn't practical in most cases. In highly populated urban areas, people walk or use mass transit. Segways would congest the sidewalks. In rural areas, there is simply too much distance that makes a Segway practical. In the ideal setting would a Segway replace a car and even then I would prefer people use a bicycle instead.

Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'

Segways are not rational. They are for a niche purpose. There are practical reasons for cars. If you are a soccer mom with 2.5 children how do you get them to school and soccer practices? Multiple Segways for the little ones? What about the groceries and errands? Or people who commute over 30mi one way to work?

Re:Segways?

[Hentes]

The Segway was a solution looking for a problem.

Re:Segways?

[Roogna]

Honestly, I've seen some VERY good uses of Segways (Most obviously one used by a physically disabled person in place of a wheelchair, which is just a beautiful use of technology)

I also wouldn't use one myself, not because it's dorky but because I already have a system built in for movement over regular distances. Feet. I LOVE walking and I for one am happy to walk all day if I can. Which is the problem, as the best market for normal sales would be people in walking friendly places.

'cep people just walk.

The place where I live has a family that each have them, We'll see them go into our town center with them, and all I can ever think is... Why not just walk? What's the rush?

Re:Segways?

[admdrew]

Haha, yup. Where I'm at ($largeMetroArea), I only see them in the big groups of Segway tours of the city, which are fairly comical to watch. Some of our downtown cops actually had them for awhile, but they complained about their mobility/practicality, and they went back to bicycles and ATVs.

Re:Segways?

[Hoi Polloi]

If you are physically disabled enough to require a device like a Segway odds are your legs don't function well enough to keep you standing either so you'll need a wheelchair after all.

Funny how people will spend thousands on something like this or on a riding mower then spend lots of money on gym memberships to walk on a treadmill for hours.

Re: Segways?

[UnknowingFool]

How would a soccer mom get her 2.5 children to school and practice using a Segway? In an urban setting, walking or mass transit. In a rural or surburban setting, a car. In a suburban setting, they could also walk or ride bicycles maybe. But using Segway is practical in only the most ideal of circumstances.

Re:Segways?

[jittles]

Ugh yeah, I wish people would stop using Segway as an example of useful innovation. The technology behind them is interesting, but as a whole they failed to actually improve transportation in any fashion.

That's not true. Not true at all. Why a few weeks ago I was at Gettysburg and I saw a group of tourists on Segways re-enacting a cavalry charge on the contraptions. It was brilliant, I dare say. And they looked like the coolest people in the entire battlefield!

Re:Segways?

[Chalnoth]

Trains and busses are even more critical for city living. Walking is the best for short distances. Bicycles are great for medium distances. But public transportation is ultimately what makes living in a city without a car doable.

Re:Segways?

[minstrelmike]

uhhhhh, competing with a bunch of Civil War re-enactors for the eponym of 'cool' is the definition of dork ;-)
OTOH, the coolest-looking folks on the modern battlefield are the US Marines with head gear that puts Google Glass to shame..
Combine the Glass with a gas mask and assault rifle and then it will sell ;-)

Re:Segways?

[bkmoore]

"Man your Segways! Fix Bayonets!! We're going over the top boys!!! CHARGE!!!!!!"

Re:Segways?

[ArcadeMan]

Even the gym itself doesn't give you a break on being lazy.

Re:Segways?

[SoftwareArtist]

Silly me! And I thought Segways failed to catch on because they cost 10 times more than bicycles while having no significant advantages!

Re:Segways?

[Khashishi]

The problem with Segways is that bikes are way better.

follow the money

[turkeydance]

Segway never got cheap enough.

Re:follow the money

[phantomfive]

Yeah. Make $500 Segways and they'll be more popular than those razor scooters, which are definitely up there on the dork list.

Re:follow the money

[BenSchuarmer]

Absolutely. Why would anybody pay low-end car money for something that is less useful than a $500 bicycle?

Re:follow the money

[camperdave]

Yeah. Make $500 Segways and they'll be more popular than those razor scooters, which are definitely up there on the dork list.

Except that a Segway weighs over 100 pounds. It's not something you can sling over your shoulder to traverse a flight of stairs.

Re:follow the money

[phantomfive]

Everywhere that matters has an elevator, or is otherwise wheelchair accessible. If you're on a Segway, you're not exactly aiming for the high-exercise option.

Who says it is a 24/7 device?

[hsmith]

The assumption is people will wear them 24/7 for some reason (or as long as the battery will last)

Why do we assume the proper use case isn't to use them as bluetooth headsets were meant to be: when you needed it (ignore the idiots that wear them to dinner)

In a medical setting, IMO it is a fantastic form factor. For the kid building sand castles, not so much. I see it as more of a device to enhance a particular activity you do that necessitates them, not as a device you sport all the time.

But then again, what is normal about walking down a street staring at your mobile phone composing a text message and not paying attention to your surroundings?

Re:Who says it is a 24/7 device?

[Agent0013]

I don't like the Google tracking that will come with these at all. But the idea of a heads up display that would have head tracking with GPS and compass is awesome. I would love for some good augmented reality features to become useful. At the current time there are not that many uses, but using imagination I can see some in the future. Pop-up tags next to people you have met, but don't remember their names. Tours of the city with interesting facts and places of interest. Directions to nearby restaurants. This last can be done using current smart phone tech, but you end up looking down at the phone too much as many people here have mentioned about people using their phones. If you could actually watch out for car and pedestrian traffic while walking and looking at the scenery and have a guide line overlayed on the ground showing you the direction and distance to you destination it would be useful. Translations of a foreign language signs showing up on your HUD would be very useful also. When speaking to someone you could do the same for what they say, but you would still need to input your part of the conversation for translation so it would be less useful there, unless they also had the HUD augmented reality system with language translation. Then you would both be able to look at each other while having a conversation in two different languages. In 100 years I bet this tech will be very useful, right now it is less so. Eventually it will be built into your eyeball or projected straight into your brain.

Really.

[ScentCone]

Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.

Yes, irrational reasons like ... rain. Or passengers. Or payload. Or personal security. Or range. Or speed.

Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky.

Look, there are armies of douche-Borgs walking around with bluetooth earpieces in, thinking not that they fall enough below some painful threshold of dorkiness while wearing them, but rather that they look cool doing so. These are the spinning hubcaps of phone accessories.

Re:Really.

[geekoid]

Or, you know, they don't give a shit what people like you think? Sure, you can judge all you want, but why do you care?

I where my blu-tooth headset becasue it's convenient , has great sound, the mic is awesome. The people judging what other [people choose to wear are the douchbags.

I find them to be Lobotastic!

Re:Really.

[Krazy Kanuck]

I want to see this rational fellow drop a toddler and a four year old off at daycare on his morning Segway commute. Sadly I found no hits on youtoob for someone attempting this.

Re:Really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, irrational reasons like ... rain. Or passengers. Or payload. Or personal security. Or range. Or speed.

Or exorbitant price, or inability to go up/down stairs, or weight/size which means you can't take it with you in an office/shop etc which, combined with the exorbitant price would mean you would leave home with a Segway and return without one...

Re:Really.

[FatLittleMonkey]

Yes, irrational reasons like ... rain. Or passengers. Or payload. Or personal security. Or range. Or speed.

No. Just two reasons. 1) Price. 2) Size.

They are too expensive for most people, and they are too bulky and awkward, relative to their usefulness. If they were more useful (like the car), we'd accept the size and cost (like the car). They need to be vastly cheaper, and either more compact or more useful for the size.

It's a shame, because the actual self-balancing mechanism is pretty awesome.

Re:Really.

[idontgno]

If such videos existed, they'd probably be hosted on Vimeo and blog-posted on FailBlog. And since little kids would probably get hurt in the process, probably not even that. (I think they've got an unspoken rule about kids getting hurt, kind of like how Bethesda games like Fallout 3 or Skyrim make child NPCs invulnerable.)

Teenagers? Fair game, especially if self-inflicted. The entire genre of skateboarding fails is pretty much built on variations of "skater-boy racking his nuts on the handrail he's trying to grind".

Re:Really.

[DirePickle]

Look, there are armies of douche-Borgs walking around with bluetooth earpieces in, thinking not that they fall enough below some painful threshold of dorkiness while wearing them, but rather that they look cool doing so. These are the spinning hubcaps of phone accessories.

Might be a regional thing, but I haven't seen anyone wear a bluetooth earpiece in a couple of years. I figured the dorkiness finally overpowered utility.

Re:Really.

[ScentCone]

Might be a regional thing

No, it's a cultural thing. Some demographics seem obsessed with being seen having one in their ear, and some just break them out when it's actually useful to use one.

I live in the DC area. This is a very easy thing to observe, over and over again, as you move from one demographic to another. It's strange, but it's plain as day.

Re:Really.

[Agent0013]

Plus you have to stand on it all day. Won't your legs get tired. Those small, one-wheeled things with the little seat that folds up small enough to put into your backpack would be much more useful. Like this one, and I remember another one that might have folded up smaller and was lighter weight.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[Nerdfest]

I thought saw a pic of Robert Scoble wearing it over his glasses. It didn't look like it fit well though. Also ... most could wear contacts, but that really doesn't help when you really need to wear sunglasses as well.

Not "too nerdy".

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unless your definition of a nerd is anybody who buys bleeding-edge tech for no reason whatever other than the "kewl" factor, which doesn't fit my definition (or Apple fans would be nerds, they aren't IMO). Nerds don't buy tech to be cool, they buy (and build and design and reporpose) tech for useful purposes.

"Too nerdy for the mainstream" usually means too complex for someone of average intelligence, and that wouldn't be an Apple or Google product.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[i kan reed]

How did this get modded up? It's been made in in each of the billion previous glass threads that they have versions that can be fitted with prescription lenses.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[BenSchuarmer]

Who needs to see the real world when you can see what Google wants you to see?

bt headset..

[gl4ss]

..99% of time literally I am not talking on the phone. it would be more of a bother to take it off for putting on headphones or whatever. normally I just wouldn't want the extra weight to wear a google glass 99% of the time.

segways aren't lame though. they're just impractical, costly and incompatible with legislation in most countries where people could afford them...

you know what google glass will be used for though? hacked in tandem to produce porno to be viewed on future oculus devices... which gets us to the real problem of google glass, that it's not quite a content consuming device and not quite a content creation device. realtime view manipulation would be the holy grail but I don't believe for a second that they have yet nailed the AR part of it yet to recognize products well on the fly like the headset in "virtual light" or terminator. in a set environment like a gallery it could work fine for providing information about certain pieces, but not in the wild.

If they looked like a pair of Ray-Bans...

[rpbird]

...I could see them taking off. But man, even on gorgeous models they look dorky. Great idea - I'm a fan of the "dataglasses" or augmented reality concept (Virtual Light anyone?) but this, it cries out for a good designer.

Target market

[onyxruby]

The Google Glass target market has two types of people in it. People who saw the Terminator movies and thought, 'that looks really cool' and voyeurs. Sell these things at the right convention and you'll make a fortune.

The first hacks will be gaining root (already done) and when people start putting the Google Glass into glass frames that don't look like they'll get you kicked out of certain entertainment venues. I don't think these have a big future with the public at large since they will freak out most people, which is too bad as I can think of any number of legitimate uses for them.

Re:Target market

[ZombieBraintrust]

4 markets
3) Profesionals such as security guards and police who don't care about your comfort. Just by wearing these they can communicate "Hey You! You are in a public place and we are watching you!
4) Sales people who want to identify people and bring up data about potential customers. Also usefull for looking up prices and inventory. Sales people already look like dorks.

Re:Target market

[onyxruby]

Your examples are certainly good ones. My point was more about there being some people that simply won't care what it looks like and those are the ones to target with a $1500 toy.

It has any number of potential uses that could be good. Think of someone working at an airport, auction house, mechanic, technician, construction worker and so on. However it's going to have steep hurdles getting accepted at the price they are selling it and looking as it does. I can easily see this being used on trading floor at exchanges if it can be made SEC compliant.

Bluetooth headsets

[Zorpheus]

Never had a bluetooth headset, but if you just leave it on all the time, wouldn't you get annoyed by having to recharge the battery so often?

Re:Bluetooth headsets

[geekoid]

I have a blu-tooth stereo head set.
When I get to work, I plug it in, and again when I get home.
I've ran it 6 hours without a charge with no problems, I suspect it would go 12.
Now it's just part of my routine. Well worth it.

Re:Bluetooth headsets

[GameboyRMH]

The battery on a BT headset lasts long enough that you could go morning to night without charging it even with plenty of talking...unlike Google Glass which will run down in 5 hours with light use.

Segways are a terrible comparison

[donaggie03]

The segway rant in the summary is ridiculous. Segways never caught on because they fail as a replacement for cars. People still need to get their groceries home and their kids to soccer practice, and they would still revert back to using their car when it rains. That fact alone makes Segways an addition as opposed to a replacement for cars, and Segways are way too expensive to be an additional cost. Secondly, if a large portion of a population started using Segways, there would still be a large portion that also used cars, so we couldn't just rebrand the streets for Segway use. A few Segways on the sidewalk is a novelty. Hundreds at one time would be silly. Whatever the "irrational reasons people love their cars," there are still a great deal of rational reasons why people love their cars, so the "irrational" argument is moo. Of course most of the large trucks and suvs on the streets are unnecessary, but those would be replaced by smaller cars, not moving platforms that people have to stand on for miles at a time. Maybe Google Glass will catch on and maybe it won't but that has nothing to do with the failure of the Segway to actually solve the problem it wanted to solve.

Re:Segways are a terrible comparison

[BrentWM]

Segways fail as a replacement for bicycles. They don't go any faster, can't be configured to carry significant loads, run on sidewalks instead of streets, and eliminate the health benefits.

Re:Segways are a terrible comparison

[minstrelmike]

Motorcycles aren't even a replacement for cars. They are a second vehicle at best

Re:Segways are a terrible comparison

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.

Re:Segways are a terrible comparison

[Khashishi]

Really? I know people with motorcycles who don't have cars.

Re:Segways are a terrible comparison

[mcrbids]

Yeah, this comment pretty much hits the nail right on the head.

Why Segway, again?

1) Despite eliminating the exercise benefits of a bicycle (my primary reason to ride) you still have to stand while using it.

2) My bike has a couple of $20 collapsible metal baskets on each side of the book rack on the back. I can haul two full bags of groceries, a gallon of milk on the book rack itself, and still carry my laptop over my shoulder. If I want, I have a trailer I can hook up that allows me to pull around as much as a few hundred pounds of stuff if I want. The Segway has no place to even put a basket.

3) I know my bike will not short out in the rain.

4) My bike will not run out of batteries, even when I decide to spend a day cycling along the coast.

5) With a mild, chronic back pain, my bike makes me feel better for using it. Standing on a jostling Segway would be horrible.

6) I currently ride a cheap "whatever" bike that's worth perhaps $150. I can buy a used convertible in decent shape shape with the $4,350 I save not buying a Segway.

7) If my bike is stolen, it's an annoyance.

Not just fashion

[markdavis]

>" 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky."

It isn't just dorky, it is rude, creepy, and invasive too. The author and Google (especially the CEO) seems to just completely skirt the entire issue of privacy- not only for the user, but all the hundreds of "victims" around the user, every day. Take out your phone and hold it up in the air, pointed at everyone you pass, meet, talk to, sit next to, and see what kind of reaction you get.

So stop pretending it is just about fashion, it is really insulting.

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

>"Man people with eyes and ears are rude creepy an invasive. How dare they look at people and remember what they see"

Do you seriously think there is any similarity between someone seeing/hearing something with their eyes/ears vs. someone going around possibly recording everything and then possibly "sharing" any or all of it with the entire Internet and in a way that can be indexed, aggregated, identified, and with no limit to how long it is stored or controlled?

And to think I was wondering why people were skirting the real issues...

Re:Not just fashion

[GameboyRMH]

When people are cyborgs who can share pictures, video and audio of their memories then your argument won't be ridiculous.

Re:Not just fashion

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is the exact kind of reaction people from 20 years ago would have if you told them about today's social media.

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

>"We have. It's called Facebook and YouTube. Since those pictures and videos keep coming out, the people making same have yet to be torn to shreds by an angry mob, and there's no sign of either Facebook or YouTube stopping any time soon, I can quite confidently say the kind of reaction we ARE getting right now is one of apathy at worst."

Wrong.

Pulling out a phone and recording something is usually something people around you are aware of, if for no other reason that it usually requires an eye-level position, pointed at a target, and with your looking at the back to see what is being recorded so it can be framed properly. And the movements to keep it pointed at a target are usually quite obvious.

It is something completely different when the device is positioned like Glass on glasses, where it is pointed at people all the time, everywhere, and with with people around it not knowing if it is being used to record audio/video or not. Huge shift in use. There is no current paradigm for this yet.

>"And before you start up with it, no, nobody really cares how much you SAY you'd beat the shit out of anyone who tried"

I would never resort to violence for such a thing, and implying it is just silly. However, I consider the use of such a thing around me to be EXTREMELY rude. If I were in any position to leave, I would not stay around such an individual in most any setting. And if I were in a position of control over the private space/environment, I would ban the use of such devices there (for example, in a bar or restaurant or store I owned, as an employer, etc).

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

>"They just need it to have a "recording" light, like a webcam. Problem solved."

Is it? What prevents the user from disabling it through settings, software hacks, firmware changes? What keeps someone from just covering the light with a sticker or paint?

It might help, but it certain doesn't solve the underlying issues.

Re:Not just fashion

[ranton]

It may take 20 years, or it may take 200, but eventually everything a human witnesses will be recorded in a fashion that can be backed up and disseminated. Even people who don't want to will be forced to. Who would want to hire one of the only guys who doesn't have photographic memory and is not a walking encyclopedia?

The real issue is why aren't people admitting that living in a world where everything is recorded is going to be the new reality, and that society has to figure out how to adapt the that instead of buying tin foil hats and trying to deny the change.

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

>"I think this is the exact kind of reaction people from 20 years ago would have if you told them about today's social media."

And you know what? A lot of people still do find much of "social media" to be rude, invasive, privacy-eroding, and detrimental. Even some people that actively use it.

The issues were valid then. And they are still valid now. Do people get used to their privacy and freedom being eroded? Yes, that is certainly true.

Re:Not just fashion

[Chalnoth]

I honestly don't think this will be a major issue. The added ability for Google Glass to provide surreptitious surveillance over current tech is essentially nil: there are a number of wearable hidden cameras that people can buy for very little money. Here's one example.

I'm also expecting that there will be a nice light that will show when people take pictures/video that will make it hard to use Google Glass for surreptitious surveillance (I could be wrong, but I doubt it).

Re:Not just fashion

[freezin fat guy]

It's only rude, creepy and invasive to those of us who don't make a fortune datamining every step, click, thought and breath of the human population.

Re:Not just fashion

[Mr_DW]

Do you seriously think there is any similarity between someone seeing/hearing something with their eyes/ears vs. someone going around possibly recording everything and then possibly "sharing" any or all of it with the entire Internet and in a way that can be indexed, aggregated, identified, and with no limit to how long it is stored or controlled?

1. Yes there is a similarity. It's called gossip.
2. Your in *public* not "private". So your desire for "privacy" in *public* is ignorant.
3. You are recorded all the time NOW. Just because they don't point out the camera(s) does not mean you are free from being recorded. And the recording can be shared anyway they want (relative to this discussion)... why? Because you are in *PUBLIC*!

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

And surveillance cameras are typically far away from the subjects and also not recording audio. They also don't follow you around or go into bathrooms either.

Re:Not just fashion

[Chrontius]

What happens when my neural interface implant and photographic-memory implant can talk to each other? Both of them are part of my moment-to-moment thought process, but I can also digitize memories and email them to people.

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

Well, we will have to wait for that day. One problem at a time...

Re:Not just fashion

[miroku000]

>" 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky."

It isn't just dorky, it is rude, creepy, and invasive too. The author and Google (especially the CEO) seems to just completely skirt the entire issue of privacy- not only for the user, but all the hundreds of "victims" around the user, every day. Take out your phone and hold it up in the air, pointed at everyone you pass, meet, talk to, sit next to, and see what kind of reaction you get.

So stop pretending it is just about fashion, it is really insulting.

Everyone is walking around with their cell phone cameras pointed up at everyone else all the time. Is it just because I live in a college town? Do they not have smart phones where you live? They put cameras on both sides of cell phones now. It is difficult to look at your screen in public without pointing the camera at everyone. Yet, for some unknown reason, no one seems to have a problem with it when it is an iPhone. It only is concerning when Google is doing it...

Re:Not just fashion

[Mr_DW]

Yes, I'm recorded pretty often in public by surveillance cameras, but those don't store the video for very long and...

This is just a guess by you. You don't actually know how long a random security tape willl be stored.
Nor do you know if it is being posted to the internet.

..., much more importantly, aren't all sending their videos to Google.

Again this is just an opinion formed in ignorance; since you don't know the specifics of the camera's watching you.

The single centralized collection of surveillance videos is the privacy issue with Google Glass.

Then stop complaining about google glasses and start fighting to keep videos taken in *public* off the internet.

Re:Not just fashion

[Mr_DW]

And surveillance cameras are typically far away from the subjects and also not recording audio.

So your just quibling over the extent of the recording? If so then I propose that the quality/abilities of those cameras are going to improve with time.

They also don't follow you around or go into bathrooms either.

No that's what portable cameras are for. Oh oh and hidden cameras. But of course our society doesn't deem the bathroom to be public for recording. So your argument is weak.

Re:Not just fashion

[Mr_DW]

1. Old ladies and kids in school give a shit about gossip. No one else.

But if they point a camera at me in public I'm going to lose it? Wow...

2. Even today, walk up to anyone in public, point a camera right at them, and see what happens.

Even today walk right up into someones face and see what happens. See? It's a bogus analogy.

Whether you like it or not, you ~cannot~ blatantly film someone against their will, whether they are in public or not. If there are laws that say you can, then those laws ~will~ change..if only to protect people like you from themselves.

Over one hundred years of it happening (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozXvAIOtifE). Your right, someday people are going to make laws to *protect* themselves from being ignorant of the english language (see the word PUBLIC). Oh wait, that must mean... I guess you ~CAN~ "blatantly film someone" in.... wait for it... *public*.

Do you seriously ever envision a scenario wherein a cop stands there and tells people they have to let you film them whether they like it or not? If anything, you would be arrested for creating a disturbance.

Do you seriously ever envision a scenario wherein a cop stands there and tells people they have to let you walk down the street whether they like it or not? Most people can.... know why? 'Cause your in *PUBLIC*

Have you ever noticed how on many newscasts, peoples faces in the background are blurred? Have you ever wondered why?

Yes, have you? Check out private use vs for profit use.

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

>"Everyone is walking around with their cell phone cameras pointed up at everyone else all the time. Is it just because I live in a college town?"

Must be, because I have never been anywhere where people hold phones up like that unless they are taking a picture or recording video. Otherwise they are held in a totally different way- cradling in one hand, at an angle, ready for the other hand to control.

Re:Not just fashion

[tirerim]

Yeah, I mean, look what happened when governments and companies tried to record everything that happened on streets, in parks, in businesses. There was such a huge public outcry that... oh, wait. That's right. The vast majority of people are content to be recorded constantly.

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

Such a tired an non-original argument. There are no cameras pointed at my face at my table in a restaurant or in my meeting at work or in the public bathroom, or at the family reunion at my Uncle's, or on the bus... but there could be with something like Glass.

This is nothing like security video, which is far away, fixed position, non-audio, usually not full motion, not following you around, and not uploaded to Google and the Internet at large en mass. Security video is usually looped and discarded quickly (days to weeks) and automatically when there are no incidents.

Oh, and even though security video is different topic, there *is* public outcry. Perhaps you should first visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance Then there is the ACLU and the EFF. And the whole drones thing all over the media. And the never ending articles about Britain's video surveillance "big brother" state.

Re:Not just fashion

[ToddInSF]

What a boring future world it will be then, with giga-terabites of recordings of people picking their noses and using the bathroom.

It's stupid to think that is some new normal. Yeah, there's a change, it's that some people are so boring and stupid that they think living life is the same as walking around recording it. Your bullshit "reality" is nothing more than "reality" tv, which is neither reality nor interesting.

Re:Not just fashion

[markdavis]

Perhaps you should read any of my several replies in the thread that tells you EXACTLY why it is different. And this has nothing to do with it being Google. It could be ANY company- pick one.

Your accusations are insulting.

Google overestimates mainstream stupidity, IMO.

[intellitech]

Mainstream is also becoming more acquainted with the absolute lack of privacy you are granted when using Google products.

And, more importantly, they're beginning to understand what that lack of privacy means.

An omnipotent device made by a company that makes $$$ analyzing your personal information? No thanks.

the iHipster

[Mystakaphoros]

Apple will just release a version with thick black frames and they'll sell like hotcakes.

Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too exp

[Culture20]

Segways might work for LA, but what about Seattle? How do you carry a kayak with a segway? How do you transport small furniture with a segway? How do you park with your best gal up on lovers'-leap with a segway? How do you seamlessly transition from one topic to another? With a segue.

yep

[geekoid]

just like comic movies, smart phones, computer games and roleplaying games~

Everyone knows the real answer

[erroneus]

It's Eye-Phone! The eye implant which links up to "the cloud" to record everything in your life.

Actually... walking around with a camera on your head is pretty dumb unless you're shooting porn or some youtube skateboarding video.

I don't even care -- I won't likely be using one of those things. I quickly tired of the bluetooth earset thing, though the little jabra speakerphone thing for my car is pretty nice.

Who knows... perceptions change all the time though. The moment some celebrities start strutting around wearing them is the moment a bunch of people change their minds about how it looks.

Re:Everyone knows the real answer

[SuricouRaven]

Lawnmower Man 2 already used the 'eye-phone.' That movie used it as the name for a compact VR interface headset.

Re:Everyone knows the real answer

[erroneus]

People confuse "privacy" with the discomfort of knowing there is something [potentially] recording them and therefore feel compelled to inhibit natural behavior.

Re:Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too

[geekoid]

All those question apply to segways everywhere, not just Seattle. Add to that it seems to be a false dichotomy to think you can only have a car OR a seqway.

Seriously? Segways are "too rational"?

[denzacar]

On what planet exactly?

They are slow scooters that require the entire world to adjust to them so those with more money than sense could walk less.
They take up more room than a walking human, have zero cargo capacity AND can't do stairs.

But most importantly they represent an overpriced way of doing something most people can do by just walking - moving slowly in a straight line.

Re:Seriously? Segways are "too rational"?

[ClayDowling]

Agreed. The problem the Segway solves isn't transportation. The problem the Segway solves is parting people who like tech gadgets from their money. If you live close enough to work that you can take a Segway, you live close enough to get off your duff and walk to work. Less hassle, less expense, and a lovely way to destress and see your neighborhood.

If you're absolutely insisting that your transportation have a low carbon footprint, Current Motors makes lovely electric scooters, and you can travel on regular roads at reasonable speeds, while hauling a small amount of cargo.

Re:Seriously? Segways are "too rational"?

[Chrontius]

They have a little cargo capacity. If you add the luggage rack, they can hold almost as much as a rolling carry-on suitcase.

Not nearly enough for a grocery run, however.

Re:Seriously? Segways are "too rational"?

[miroku000]

On what planet exactly?

They are slow scooters that require the entire world to adjust to them so those with more money than sense could walk less. They take up more room than a walking human, have zero cargo capacity AND can't do stairs.

But most importantly they represent an overpriced way of doing something most people can do by just walking - moving slowly in a straight line.

Seqway is to transportation what a skateboard is to transportation. Neither makes transportation all that more efficient. But, it does make it more fun.

Re:Seriously? Segways are "too rational"?

[denzacar]

Skateboards are in the "powered by humans" category. Segway needs external power to work.

Fun is secondary to devices ability to transport one from A to B.
Without external power, Segway is a very expensive and not very "fun" coat rack. Or a boat anchor.

Pepper Spray

[ZombieBraintrust]

A product doesn't have to be used by 1 billion people to be successfull. Not everyone carries around pepper spray but it is still a big industry. Even if Google Glass is only used by security guards, police officers, dectectives, tabloid jurnalists, and debt collectors is will be a success. It just needs to be usefull to a fraction of the population to make a ton of money.

Re:Pepper Spray

[westlake]

Even if Google Glass is only used by security guards, police officers, dectectives, tabloid jurnalists, and debt collectors is will be a success.

Professions in which unobstructed vision, situational awareness, and eye contact with the subject are all-important. The picture may not be worth the epic beat-down that put you in hospital.

Segway versus Car

[cfalcon]

I can't think of any time I would rather drive a Segway than a car.

I could think of times I would rather Segway than bike, or walk. Segways are far too slow to replace a car for any meaningful distance.

Re:Segway versus Car

[GameboyRMH]

A Segway could be better than a car for driving indoors.

Re:Segway versus Car

[miroku000]

I can't think of any time I would rather drive a Segway than a car.

I could think of times I would rather Segway than bike, or walk. Segways are far too slow to replace a car for any meaningful distance.

By that logic, we don't need cars because they generally can't go as fast as a jet.

Segway aren't rational for most people...

[Picass0]

... they're best designed for workers or students to operate within a radius of a mile or two which is why you see lots of security people use them at larger companies or campuses.

You can't get groceries in a Segway. You can't pick up the kids after school. If the weather changes unexpectedly you'll have a misserable ride. Segways are expensive and would make attractive targets for theft. You can buy a decent bicycle or even a motorcyle for far less. People change their plans during the course of a typical day and a Segway restricts their flexability in ways a car doesn't.

The people who seem most likely to use a Segway for personal use are people who don't like or have difficulty walking. Ironicly these are the people most likely to be injured by a Segway mishap.

Re:Segway aren't rational for most people...

[Khashishi]

Segways have their niche: sightseeing tours and maybe the occasional mall cop.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[Russ1642]

No way!!! Who came up with that? Pure genius.

Re:Dork != bad

[DougOtto]

I think you need a new circle of friends.

Perfect for driving. Maybe some sports.

[millertym]

But that's about it. I think this article is spot on. There are tons of "smarter" things we don't do because they are socially awkward.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually we should ask the reverse question: why would people who never wear glasses buy those things? Everyone would have glasses, even those who don't need prescription lenses? I don't think so.

No.

[istartedi]

It's too creepy and douche-baggy. Nerds should have smart minds, not necessarily smart devices anyway.

Flawed examples

[phizi0n]

I don't expect google glass to ever become popular for everyday use but do think it will have niche markets but the reasons that Marcus thinks it will fail are completely flawed.

I've never seen anyone use bluetooth and then put it away or have it away and then put it on just for a call, from what I've seen people either leave it on all day looking like douches or put it on the entire time while driving. ie. if they have the headset with them then they are wearing it.

He says segways are lame because they are rational which makes absolutely no sense - segways are completely irrational. How are you going to get to work 20 miles away on a segway? You're not. How would you carry groceries home on a segway? You wouldn't. How are you going to transport very young children on a segway? You can't. Segways are toys for the rich and tourists that rent them. They have extremely limited practical usage that is better accomplished with things such as mopeds, bicycles, skateboards, skates, or even good old fashion walking.

nah im pretty sure

[nimbius]

when a product is hyped to death by futurists, plugged incessantly by bloggers, fetishized by cyberpunks and danced around by investors the only purpose in damning it as 'too nerdy' is to make it an even more appealing item for the mainstream 'nerds are sexy' culture.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[SuricouRaven]

Contacts.

For those who can't wear contacts, wait - eventually, if it's a success, google or a competitor will offer one that allows the easy addition of appropriate lenses.

Borg Technology

[foobsr]

Corporate controlled drones, just to give a different time horizon.

A primitive singularity.

CC.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[i kan reed]

It seems like it might be fun? I dunno. I can't see wearing one to work, it would be a waste of time and would hardly complement a professional image(oh god when did I become an adult), but when I'm playing an RPG with friends, why wouldn't I want to keep my character sheet/DM notes on a tiny corner of my vision? When I'm going on a bike ride with my girlfriend, why wouldn't I want to be able to record it?

I don't think I'll buy the "all the time" type usage google suggests, but toys can be fun.

Segway is impractical.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Not all people have an irrational love for their cars. Not even most people have such an irrational love for their cars. Even the people who love their cars hate the car companies, and oil companies in general. The reason why segways have not displaced cars as the preferred mode of urban transporation is, that they are impractical.

Limited charge, exposed to the elements, limited speed and range. So other than places like warehouses, parking lot attendants, sight seeing tours, there is no real market for it. Even sprawling amusement parks which use Segways in their parking lots, do not rent them to the general public in their parks. Even farmers and ranchers who have to cover long distances prefer ATVs and motorcycles to segways.

Segway is a very innovative concept relying on the physics of gyroscopes to auto stabilize an unstable platform. The price of electronics and sensors have come down enough to make this possible. Great. But it is not all innovations have practical applications. There is a highly developed, functional, excellent stabilizing mechanism for fundamentally unstable vehicles. The human brain. So segway won't even compete with motorcycles as sensible transport solution.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[fast turtle]

before ordering contacts, you need to be fitted and prescribed a set and before you make the comment that contacts are great, I can tell you that for some of us, they're medically inadvisable and yes I'm one of them that contacts are not an option for.

For those who can wear them, a Good pair of sunglasses work just fine as I've got friends who do wear them and Ray Bans.

Google glass would would have to offer more

[Karmashock]

Any perceived dorkyness can be overcome with sufficient utility.

Google Glass doesn't get anywhere near that threshold. What does it ACTUALLY do that a smartphone doesn't do right now?

Make a list.

And then tell me why or how it overcomes the "problem."

Title correction: "dorky", not nerdy

[kimanaw]

As TFA says, nerd is good (the new cool?), but Google specs are for dorks (with Scoble as the perfect piitchman for other dorks).

But if they added Warby Parker frames, the poseur nerds would presumably wear them...tho I guess thats just a slightly different brand of dork.

What's nerdy does not matter

[yacc143]

Two aspects: price and usefulness.

The Segway has been to expensive, plus had usefulness issues, e.g. many jurisdictions banning them from public usage.

A decade ago, reading an ebook on a tiny electronic display was clearly very nerdy, and a couple of people wondered how I managed to walk with the head in the tiny thing, without crashing into the surroundings all the time.

Today, it's common place. Because being able to read an ebook everywhere without carrying around dead wood. Checking on your electronic communication on the way to the office is useful.

Now for Google Glass the first question is price. The developer preview seem to be a little bit pricey, but if Google wants they could push it probably down far enough. Now the question is how useful it will be.

One issue would be input for me. If Google glasses require e.g. voice input, they are setup for semi-failure. (Hint: Siri&Co might be basically useable for English-speaking people, but voice input does fail badly the moment you want to support international customers. Plus voice input has the drawback that the fallback is way worse than hacking in a word unknown to your display keyboard char by char)

Re: Segways

[rnturn]

Segways will never be ubiquitous because they provide no protection from the weather and you can't really carry anything when riding one (other than what will fit in your backpack). Until we all live in domed cities cars will still be more useful than Segways for getting around. I'm still wondering how they'll be able to transport more than one person at a time. A family outing to, well, anywhere isn't going to work with Segways.

The article is right on about the dorkiness factor of Google Glass. I've gotta wonder about the genius at Google that OKed the development of Glass without a better understanding as to whether people will even want to be broadcasting everything they're seeing onto the Web. And looking like a Borg while doing it.

Segway too rational. Really?

[NumenMaster]

He had me until 'They’re too rational,' regarding segways.

Snow Crash already predicted this

[Infernal Device]

The inherent non-acceptability of Google Glass was somewhat predicted by Snow Crash over 20 years ago. One of the characters, a "gargoyle" walks around in full-recording mode at all times, trying to capture every bit of information possible. The description, as given, is at best neutral and my takeaway was that it wasn't considered a positive thing by other information gatherers of that world.

Crapflooding ones own info stream is still crapflooding.

Re:Snow Crash already predicted this

[floatpt]

The description, as given, is at best neutral and my takeaway was that it wasn't considered a positive thing by other information gatherers of that world.

Neutral? maybe. I don't recall things turning out well for the gargoyle. Something about having the arteries of his legs sliced so that all of his blood instantly drained out like punching the bottom out of a styrofoam cup. d-_-b

People don't like glasses

[thetoadwarrior]

People go out of their way not to wear glasses despite the fact there are some really nice look glasses. No matter how awesome google glasses may be I can't see people deciding all of the sudden they're ok with wearing glasses and one that look relatively dorky. We're shallow people and combining that with the reputation that google is getting for snooping on your privacy it's just not going to happen.

Re:People don't like glasses

[VortexCortex]

People go out of their way not to wear glasses despite the fact there are some really nice look glasses.

Yet they wear colored contacts despite having beautiful eyes...

If they attached a voice activated laser pointer and had a hologram over the eye-piece that you could still see through, so we could look like Borg, they'd sell like hotcakes. Make a version for pirates with eye patches, etc. There is a market, and, yes, in case you haven't noticed, "geek" culture is mainstream now.

Re:People don't like glasses

[thetoadwarrior]

I don't think that's strictly true. Sure I see teen girls wearing shirts that say geek and they have smart phones but is that really geek culture if they're still wearing the awful plastered on make-up and gold hoop ear-rings just because they have a shirt that says geek?

And yeah a lot of people have smart phones but realistically they're the only phones you can choose from now. The few times I've been in a phone shop I hardly see normal phones and while Android has the potential to be geeky the fact so few people use it for apps or even the internet implies to me they're just being used as phones by a lot of people which isn't exactly geeky.

I think for a lot of people geek culture means having shiny toys. Which, I guess is fine, but Google glass just isn't looking like a shiny toy. It's looking a bit nerdy.

It's the Segway fanboys who are irrational

[Un pobre guey]

'If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure. But that transformation hasn't happened. And it won’t. Why? Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'"

Only a complete dork could make such a moronic comment. Everyone riding around in Segways would:

• Abolish what little physical exercise many people get. This would significantly exacerbate an already monstrous health crisis in the U.S.
• Require vast and expensive changes to the public thoroughfare to accommodate such a huge shift in traffic patterns.
• Demonstrate just how irrational and gullible people can be. It is little more than idiotic fashionista fanboyism. There is nothing rational about moving from cars to Segways.
• Overload the electrical grid and require enormous investments there as well. Who will pay for all of this?
• Require the fools who buy them to move back to their cars after they realize the utter impracticality of commuting via Segway.

accessory pack?

[schlachter]

Is this the Google Glass ACCESSORY PACK?! Wahooo

All the irrational reasons people love cars?

[cogeek]

Oh, I don't know.. I live in Denver, CO, never thought of a roof to keep rain and snow off, 4-wheel drive for snow and icy conditions, a defroster and heater to keep from freezing in the winter and a range that will actually get me back and forth to work without pulling over to plug in as being "irrational reasons" for driving a 4-wheeled vehicle instead of a Segway.

internet 20 yrs ago?

[schlachter]

What were you wanting the internet for 20 yrs ago? To read updates to your favorite news group as you walked around?

Re:internet 20 yrs ago?

[Ksevio]

Obviously he wanted to browse the whole world wide web. Wouldn't want to miss a new site!

iOS is Unix

[schlachter]

Ok, not Linux, but so similar that you could argue that that between Android and iOS, the most popular computer OS these days is Linux/Unix.

style cannot overcome bad substance

[tri44id]

It's not because the style of the glasses themselves is bad; it's actually quite clean when viewed as a product of the same industrial designers that gain huge amounts of respect for such products as the iPad or the iMac. Even allowing for the fact that they were created by industrial designers rather than fashion designers, there are classic styles of glasses that would be perfect for this technology, such as the much-copied Prada sunglasses worn by Marcello Mastroianni in the film 8 1/2 in 1963, which are still stylish when worn by James Hetfield 50 years later.

But putting Google Glass technology into these frames and giving Hetfield a copy to wear onstage would not make them polite to wear on the street. They're a walking admission that whoever you're interfacing with in person is less important than some electronic stuff that you're too socially inept to share.

Re:Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too

[FatLittleMonkey]

It also fails to recognise that a society that evolves around Segways wouldn't have more than one type, just as societies evolved around bicycles also have cargo and cab variants and addons.

(The first Segway was a wheelchair, so it's not like you can't have variants.)

video documentation is needed

[schlachter]

There will be a time when these devices are so ubiquitous that it will just seem obvious to everyone that if you claim something is true, or that it happened, you be able to back that up with some video/audio. Imagine a car accident in 50 yrs, where both parties produce a recording of the accident to their insurance companies...ha..well...if we were still driving ourselves around then.

And as the gov increases their surveillance of the general population, citizens will need the ability to document their actions for the purposes of self defense.

Oops

[FatLittleMonkey]

wouldn't/would

contacts are next gen google glass

[schlachter]

the google glassess will come first. google contacts are many generations down the road, but slightly ahead of the google neural interface tech.

On the failure to see lots of segways

[mark-t]

The fact that they are actually illegal to operate on public property in many areas of both Canada and the USA may have affected the product's adoption rate somewhat. I would suggest this much moreso than how "dorky" it makes someone look.

Pshhh....

[dragon-file]

The article is bullocks. Google glass isn't too nerdy. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a chess tournament to get to. *makes sure his Bluetooth ear piece is in place, hops on his Segway and rides off into the sunset.*

Not at all

[LostMonk]

Segway is not too dorky or clumsy, it just was -- and still is -- way too expensive to become normal everyday transportation.
A Bluetooth headset is dorky, but that's not the reason people aren't wearing it all the time. It's simply not nearly comfortable enough for that.
Google Glass? It's current looks is not all that cool... ok it is kinda dorky, but give it a chance. I positive future iterations of the technology can compress it even further and make more stylish.

And one more thing, fashions change quickly. Today's dorky just might be tomorrow's cool.

Early Adopters? No, always wait for v2.0, SP1, etc

[VortexCortex]

Nerds and Mainstream folk alike know now that you never get the first version. I'm holding out for the next revision: Ocular Implants AKA Googly Eyes

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[Frosty Piss]

....I pretty much see only the bluetooth receiver in the ear all the time primarily with one race, at least here in the US.

Exactly *which* race are you alluding to? The Morons?

Segway

[slapout]

The problem with Segways is that they're too expensive.

Revenge of the Nerds

[TiggertheMad]

Yes

More to the poin, fuck whatever they mainstream likes or doesn't like. I have been a self identified as a nerd for 30 years, and I have seen many of my hobbies and interests become mainstream in that time. I know what I like and I don't need validation from anyone. Society can either like tech like this or get run over by it when they don't embrace it, and I do.

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[aceboomblain]

I've seen douche-bags of multiple races who feel the need to always have their bluetooth receiver in their ear. Maybe we have more equal opportunity douche-bags in this part of the US than you.

OK Glass, close thread.

[Phil Urich]

FTFY.

it's all a mishmash

[Chirs]

I have a WebOS tablet running the linux kernel with an alternate userspace that can run Ubuntu as an app in a chroot.

I can run Android emulation on top of a "regular" desktop linux distribution.

And any given full linux distro is far more than just the linux kernel and GNU stuff on top.

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[demonlapin]

It's a black thing, usually among people who are heavily blinged out - it's a subcultural thing. You'll also find black Americans put the phone on speaker and then hold it up in front of their face but parallel with the ground. Makes some sense when it's a group talking to someone but otherwise I don't get it.

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[cayenne8]

With respect to the bluetooth thing in your ear "all the time"...I see this primary done on a racial line.

It may only be anecdotal evidence, but my observations over the past few years is....I pretty much see only the bluetooth receiver in the ear all the time primarily with one race, at least here in the US.

Has anyone else noticed this or is it maybe just my part of the country?

Wow...its getting so that you can't make an observation these days, if it involves race, without anyone freaking out over it. C'mon, I didn't even mention which race I had noticed this about, and yet severely down modded.

Are those out there that get immediately uptight about anything alluding to the differences in culture and actions between races and ethnicities (sp?), in essence saying that no one should ever discuss or point out things that are different? Are you that uptight about pointing out the distinctions between the genders?

I wasn't saying anything was wrong, bad or making fun, only that I observed differences and wondering if anyone else had noticed the same.

And again, look..I didn't even MENTION which race I noticed this about.

Grow a bit thicker skin, please.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either.

[Time_Ngler]

I don't see how the D&D notes would work, unless you had a keyboard to edit them as well. And if you have a full keyboard, and google glass, why not just use a pen and paper instead?

And you can get a head mounted camera for 40 bucks.

Re:Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too

[Chrontius]

The two cost about the same amount of money. Some people are just cheap, but others genuinely can't afford both.

It's only a matter of time

[9jack9]

The OP (and the author of TFA) need to think longer-term.

Whether GG succeeds or not in its first incarnation is a completely different issue than whether it will succeed in the end.

The future is here, boys and girls. Humans have been steadily integrating more and more technology into our bodies ever since . . . well, ever since we've had bodies and technology.

Glasses, hearing aids, artificial limbs, portable writing implements, carriable cameras, backpacks . . . the amount of wearable technology is staggering. So we know people will wear technology, and will integrate it into their bodies.

Do people want to take pictures? Yes. They want to take pictures. All the time. Everywhere. Every form factor that you can use to capture an image, people use. People carry around big DSLRs. Compact cameras. Cell phones. And when Google Glass gets to be easy-enough, and cheap-enough, and common-enough, they'll do that, too.

Face it. We are well on our way to recording every freaking minute of our lives, from every possible angle. And Google will store it and search it for us. The only real question left is, will we be the subject or the object of our future? Will the govt and the corps be the only ones who record and use the moments of our lives, or will we as well?

Take back the future. The ability for people to be able to invisibly record anything and everything will also let us watch the cops and the crooks. That's a good thing.

And earpieces and Segway? Actually, more people don't use earpieces because it doesn't work well enough. Yet. When I can stick something in my ear that's near invisible, picks up my whisper, blocks out the ambient noise, and doesn't need recharging all the time, why would I ever take it off?

And look how long it took for bikes to become ubiquitous. Give Segway a chance. Pretty soon you'll see SegShare along BikeShare.

Segway and suburbia

[Whatever Fits]

In my city (Sacramento), most of the people driving come in from the suburbs. So, to use a Segway, these people would have to drive downtown (30+ minutes in a car, an eternity on a Segway) then park and pull a Segway out of their car to go where? Their office? Then they have to park a Segway? Really, that's just stupid. It isn't because they are dorky, it is because they are completely an inconvenience. They are great for tourists or specialty applications but horrible for general public. People who live downtown ride their bikes or walk, never a Segway. Google Glass has applications for the general public even if they are dorky. Making the transition from Glass to Sans Glass is as simple as shoving them into a pocket. Comparing these to a Segway is idiotic at best. Comparing to Bluetooth earpieces is more appropriate. Dorky, but functional and so ubiquitous that nobody cares any longer about how dorky they look.

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[node 3]

No, it's because it's a fucking stupid observation with no relevancy whatsoever.

"You don't wear your Bluetooth all the time"

[Phasma Felis]

"Think of the Bluetooth headset: it’s a really sensible way to use your phone without having to take it out of your pocket—so sensible that there’s really no reason not to keep that headset in your ear most of the time. But you don’t, do you?"

Yes. Yes, I do. Know why? Because I'm a nerd, I'm practical, and I don't give two wet shits what you think.

What weirds me out about this excerpt (I did not RTFA) is the vague implication that if people are too image-obsessed to use a practical, advantageous product, it's the product that's defective and not the people.

Help! I've fallen and can't recharge my GGlasses!

[WillAffleckUW]

Oh be quiet grandpa.

Only old fogies use tech that has a battery life of under 5 hours during normal use.

glass is the new bluetooth

[osho741]

Meaning it will just be another way of spotting who the tools are when I am in line at McDonalds.

Segways

[miroku000]

Segways had a lot of problems, but being lame wasn't one of them. A company I used to work for had a few of them and we used to ride them around a bit for fun on the weekends. We had so many hot girls approach us and ask if they could try it. I was surprised at how well it worked.

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[Frosty Piss]

It's a black thing

Really? Because around where I live, it seems to be fat white guys that look like they work in "IT".

And lets hope they remain too nerdy

[ras]

As a person who wears a bum bag (or fanny pack as they call it in the US) and a bluetooth headset, I hope are and will forever remain nerdy.

The worst thing that can happen to any useful piece of technology is that it becomes the opposite of nerdy - a fashion item. Suddenly looks become more important that functionality. And because there are so many more fashion tragic's than nerds, the capitalist economy responds by making things that are barely useful.

Take mobile phones. Yes, mobile phones were bricks, or candy bars, or whatever. But they lasted for a week or so on a single charge. Then they became a fashion item. Fashion means slim, apparently. Modern smart phones could easily last a day with heavy usage (the sort of use I put them to when I am in a foreign city using them for navigation, information and communication) - if they weren't so bloody slim. The battery contributes less than 25% of the device volume, so adding a mm or two and re-arranging everything to suit would would more than double battery life. This just translates into making them as thick as the old candy bar phones. Yes, you can get bigger batteries - but then it doesn't fit into all the accessories - like the car cradle. I've taken to carrying around a spare battery.

Having made them slim, they next went to wall to wall glass. And then the iPhone put glass on the rear. The older phones were so robust they have fallout out of my pocket while on my push bike at 30km/hr, skidded across the asphalt, hit the gutter and exploded into it's constituent bits (covers, battery, ...). I picked it up, put it back together again and was fine. A modern smartphone on the other hand has been made so delicate, everybody puts it in a rubber case - hiding the very thing that is supposed to be making the fashion statement. And that makes sense how?

Next some of them have gone to non-removeable batteries, thus killing the "take a spare battery" backup plan. It also means if it doesn't get broken or otherwise get its delicate little brain smashed, the component rated to last the shortest amount of time can't be replaced.

Now laptops are going down the same route. By laptop, I don't mean netbooks - I mean the machines we buy now instead of desktops. The machines we plug several monitors into and a wired network. Oh wait - apparently they are supposed to make a fashion statement too, so now an RJ45 socket is too big. Seriously? On a device with a 17" display so large it is going to spend it's entire life on a desk, we have to remove the RJ45 socket because looking good is more important than having a reliable 1Gb/s network connection?

To be fair, it didn't start with Apple. I recall the first time somebody proudly showed me their new desktop box - and it glowed. Apparently LED's on bezel and inside the power supply were all the rage. WTF? A desktop box is supposed to be a powerhouse sitting quietly under the desk doing it's job for years without complaint, and without chewing too much power. It's major design constraints are form factor, air flow, and accessibility to the internal components so you could replace / upgrade them. LED's don't help any of them, and hinder a few. I guess that prepared me for laptop's going down the same path - wasting their precious battery power on looking like a glow in the dark alien monster.

I could go on - but suffices that I very much hope the article is right, and HUD devices remain too nerdy for the fashionistas. The day form starts dominating function is the day I'll start cursing them and their designers.

Google Glass

[Xylene2301]

They're nerdy now but when they get stylized by Gucci and others they won't be. They'll just be more expensive and trendy. People will get over the nerdiness anyway; a large number of people will use anything if it gives them an advantage.

Not for sporters

[Optali]

I have no idea if the mainstream might be interested, but sporters would give an arm for one of them (figuratively).

Just imagine being able to see your pace, mileage, time, heart rate, route, weather information, etc right in front of you, constantly displayed without the need for looking at your wrist.

I actually am still planning on duct-taping the "watch" part of my Nike+ wristwatch to the brim of a running cap to get constant pace and mileage information.

I do hate running with a smartphone, but on longer trail runs I have to wear a "camel" type back pack anyway with a water bladder and if I could have the info that a device like the Google Glass provides I would be glad to have to live with the annoying weight of a smarthpone... and this without considering the possibility of a smart watch connected via bluetooth to the Glass...

Mates, I'm salivating!!!

But maybe it's true that I am too nerdy, LOL
   

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[demonlapin]

Like I said, it's subcultural - guess white neckbeards really do wish they were gangstas. Life imitates Office Space.

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[uninformedLuddite]

Now if you had said white people you could of got a +5 insightful

Re:I dunno about 'nerdy'....

[uninformedLuddite]

wrong spot sorry

It's a prototype, dummies

[JBaustian]

The first mobile phones were the size of bricks, but they got better and smaller. If Google Glass doesn't succeed, it will be because Google or someone else makes a better version. At any rate, this idea can't be uninvented.

Clearly the author is out of touch as well...

[centre21]

I have to comment on this line from the article, "...Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars..."
Rational compared to what? What exactly does a Segway do better than any current form of transportation out there?
Can it replace the bicycle? No, since the Segway can run out of power where it cannot be recharged. Plus the bicycle has had over 100 years of innovation to make it work with the rider. I've ridden a Segway, it's not as fantastic a ride as a bicycle.
Can it replace the automobile? Not if you need to go over 5 mph (for beginners). Or uphill. Or more than 25 miles. Or if it rains. Or if you have to go grocery shopping. In terms of city driving, the scooter is a much more sensible vehicle.
The Segway "failed" because it's a niche device. It was a device created without a market, and it had to manufacture its own. It's perfect for zipping around a campus, but not much else. And let's face it, can you image a city full of people riding these things? Accidents galore, without the benefit of safety harnesses and crumple zones.
And Google Glass isn't going to "fail" because you might look like a dork (need I mention current fashions that do the same thing yet a good portion of the population still loves them?), it's going to "fail" because of all the privacy issues associated with the product.

Hire models

[one-egg]

Back in the 70's when Sony introduced the Walkman in Japan, it flopped because nobody wanted to be seen with a cassette player on their belt and dorky headphones on their ears. So Sony hired a bunch of professional models to parade around the Tokyo business district wearing Walkmans. ("Walkmen"?) Pretty soon the public associated headphones with sexy people, and the rest is history.

Google should do the same. Manipulating popular taste is possible.