Google Glass: Obnoxious and invasive at any price
Summary: Products like Google Glass will face numerous adoption challenges because they present issues in any number of social situations where privacy or desire to be "off the record" is most cherished.
Wearable computing has been part of the holy grail of the pursuit towards integration of information science with human interface devices.
We've seen its use described in popular science-fiction novels and shown in movies and television (like "Star Wars" and "Star Trek"), and it's been the fodder of futurists for longer than I can possibly remember.
There's no question that these devices will be used extensively, particularly in vertical markets for specific types of applications where hands-free computing has distinct advantages, such in the medical and military fields, as well as in breaking news reporting.
But products like Google Glass will face numerous adoption challenges because they present issues in any number of social situations where privacy or desire to be "off the record" is most cherished.
One might ask, why are privacy issues with Glass any different than any other device that can record, such as a smartphone or a miniature tablet?
They are absolutely different. Today, even with cameras on smartphone handsets, recording in certain areas is frowned upon, but at least there is time for the object of the recording to raise an objection and ask for the device to be put away.
Because Glass is being worn, and might eventually be integrated into prescription eyewear, it's a "stealth" recording device. The object of the recording may not know they've been captured on video until it is too late. And, the device's ability to transmit that footage to the public-viewable cloud nearly instantaneously with a 4G or Wi-Fi connection will make it much more feared than a simple camera with localized storage.
In the "Explorer" edition of Google Glass that has now shipped to celebrity early adopters and developers, there is no indication whatsoever that the subject is being recorded.
Contrary to early reports, there is no LED or light or anything of the sort to alert that a video or a picture is being taken. This might be changed in mass-market versions of the device produced by licensing OEMs, but for now, one should assume that if Glass' 720p CMOS sensor is pointed at you, you're on Candid Camera.
Glass and similar products that enter the market because of their potential for recording images and video in a stealthy fashion will be unwelcome in any place that people gather and expect some degree of privacy, and new social norms will have to be developed for their use as well as establishment of etiquette for obtaining the consent of those being recorded.
What about prescription versions of Glass? Won't it make it harder to remove them from people in social situations?
First, we're making a very big assumption that Google can get the eyewear industry to cooperate by licensing this technology. Google is probably not going to want to get into the eyewear business because there are too many styles, and people view their eyewear styles as being a very personal fashion choice.
That being said, the balance of the designer eyeglass frame as well as the prescription eyeglass retail business, as well as the distribution channels for prescription eyewear — with the exception of Costco and Wal-Mart, which are loss leaders in this area — is effectively a monopoly controlled by the Luxottica Group S.p.A, based in Milan, Italy, which generates over €7 billion in net sales annually, based on their last financial statement.
Virtually every design patent for every licensed eyeglass brand you can think of is controlled by this firm. If Google even wants to play in this arena, it will be on Luxottica's terms. If you think Apple is litigious with protecting design patents, just imagine what Luxottica will do if it suspects Google is attempting to intrude on its business.
More than likely, I think that anyone who is serious about using these sort of devices will opt to use contact lenses or elect for corrective laser surgery, and they can simply just remove the device if someone takes offense to it being used.
- Video: Sticker Shock: Why are eyeglasses so expensive? (CBS 60 Minutes)
And again, if Luxottica feels its long-term business is threatened by the device in any way that could potentially lead toward a downward trend in the use of prescription eyewear, God help Google.
For those too squeamish for corrective surgery or contact lenses, a "clip-on" version of Glass is likely to enter the market.
And the potential for backlash?
Well, there's already backlash to Google Glass. The fact that terms like "Glasshole" and "Doucheglass" are being bandied about already means that the general public finds the product and their users to be obnoxious.
There will be Glass-free signs posted in businesses of all kinds. I can certainly see them being banned from any number of public spaces under local ordinances passed which may govern when and where they cannot be used.
They will be prohibited from being used in schools due to concerns over student distraction and possible cheating. Government buildings will almost certainly prohibit them, as will airport security. There will be incidents of "Glass Rage" where people will get into fights over their use.
And there are probably scenarios for backlash we haven't even thought of yet.
Despite the clear privacy issues and challenges that Google will face with the eyewear industry, I do think that these devices will inevitably enter the mainstream, despite restrictions that will be imposed on their use.
If Luxottica feels its long-term business is threatened by the device in any way potentially that could lead toward a downward trend in the use of prescription eyewear, God help Google.
I think there will be an initial surge for prosumers/professionals and verticals at $800 with a mass adoption price point at about $500, with universal adoption at about $250.
That Android runs at the core of Glass is probably a good thing, at least for Google's device. Android is a known quantity when it comes to software development.
However, the type of apps we will see for augmented reality use are likely to be very different than what is used on a smartphone. I expect these to be more of the "telemetry" type apps that are simply extensions of things running remotely on a Bluetooth-connected smartphone, not unlike how current smart watches work.
I believe augmented reality wearable computers are likely to enter the industry by more than just Google, and there will be different ways to market the geotargeting aspects of the technology.
The obvious one will be augmented reality superimposed advertisements that hook directly into Google Ads, but there's huge potential for noise here.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
You may also like
[i]
Talkback
At least we can assume
that we might be being recorded and not do anything bad if we see a person with "the glasses". It will keep people on good behavior and help to more quickly locate criminals like in the boston bombing. In certain private places, there can simply be a sign to take them off. If they are not off, we know it and the person can be told to leave.
Also, we could have 'reverse' glass to see whose behind us waiting to pounce. This could also be extended to a 360 degree of our vehicles to have a more complete view around us. This will have the opposite effect of those who say it will be worse for driving.
I disagree
"Also, we could have 'reverse' glass to see whose behind us waiting to pounce. This could also be extended to a 360 degree of our vehicles to have a more complete view around us. This will have the opposite effect of those who say it will be worse for driving."
There comes a point of sensory overload, and a 360 degree view of your car or the world around you real time will be far more then most people can process. It'll won't be an accident waiting to happen, instead an accident that won't have to wait to happen.
I can tell you, driving with these glasses will result in accidents, it wont prevent them.
Driving
The first thing that came to mind for me with these glasses was that it would be great to hook a GUI running on the glasses to an OBD2 sensor for a speedometer where you don't have to look down to check your speed while driving. If the interface is very simple and to the point I don't see an issue with it. The display could be as simple as a few digits. I know that when I'm launching and then looking down to verify I'm not speeding when merging into traffic I feel like while I'm looking down at the speedometer I'm potentially losing control of the car for that split second. If I could just glance over the road is still in my peripheral view and I'd feel safer about it.
Paranoid Delusions
Wow, and I thought my mother-in-law was bad. Scared of technological advancement much? This is a terrible article, full of animosity towards Google I imagine...judging from the writers employment. Trying to bring out the fear and paranoia that is so easy to feed to the sheep.
With the world full of camouflaged cameras and high speed information sharing, the issues described are long past.
And driving...really? You can't see the potential here? How about enhanced driving vision? Objects such as pedestrians and road obstructions could be highlighted and brought to your immediate attention. In the future, I could even see external cameras that could assist with dulled vision due to fog or darkness. Your route highlighted right on the road...I could totally see this going to a HUD type system.
Very Different contexts...
Camera's that are on the street are there to catch bad guys. At least that is the theory. Google glass is about catching you at a moment that you might not consider appropriate.
When you are on the street you are not going to converse certain topics and do certain actions. In a restaurant those topics that you did not talk about in public become topics, and you might do certain actions. It is about degrees of privacy here. With Google glass all privacy goes out the window. That is and will remain unacceptable.
Next about enhanced driving, yes that already exists and is brought to you by the cars. The problem with google glass is that it is disconnected from the car. When you tilt your head will the landscape tilt? Google glass will not have the enhanced vision built in, but devices in the car will. Thus when you tilt your head the device does not tilt meaning you become sea sick as the two fields of vision have become disconnected.
If this system is implemented as HUD like it already is in cars, yeah I agree.
And finally, do we really want to see Scoble in the shower? No offense on Scoble I knew the guy when he was working conferences for Fawcette and he was then a nice guy. Or how about this picture: http://www.timegeist.li:8082/files/dec58654/geeks.png Sorry, but this is a picture of pervs! You know that Uncle that you really don't want to hang around because he is creepy...
I'd get them at about 1/3rd the price
And I'd get them just so I could wait outside Jason Perlow's place and then film him surrupticiously. Have some vision man. You don't have any expectation of privacy when you're outside anyway, and for all you know someone could be filming you with a high powered lens from a half mile away and you wouldn't even know it. In that comparison, Google Glass is useless, get over yourself.
Actually correction on star trek adoption...
In Star Trek google glass has been used twice;
1) Episode in StarTrek NG when an evil race wanted to control the Enterprise through a game displayed by the glasses
2) Star TreK DS9, Gem'ha'da use it to control their battle ships
Personally I see Google Glass as evil as Star Trek sees it as evil...How very... High School
There are always those that greet new and exciting technology like angry little monkeys, throwing poo at that which they do not understand.
Set aside the misspellings in the article (unforgivable in those that aspire to be professional journalists)... the point of article is rather paranoid and not very forward looking.
One assume a technology journal wants to be forward looking, but this attempt to make it look "dorky" because... well... you don't like or understand it is not in keeping with what a technology journal's mission / vision / values.
