or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's Brin says smartphones are antisocial, 'emasculating'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's Brin says smartphones are antisocial, 'emasculating' - Page 2

post #41 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


I'm sure they'll tell you lasik is needed so you can see the Emperor's new clothes.

 

They need to be a lot less conspicuous to use/wear than currently pictured. The original DynaTAC was a bit odd when it was first released, but eventually as the devices became smaller and more widespread they also became less peculiar to the general public.

 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #42 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

To be fair, the primary modern meaning of the verb  "to emasculate" is just "to weaken". It does derive from an archaic word meaning castrate, and, specifically in relation to males, it can have the meaning that you quoted, but he may have been using it correctly in the sense of weakening interpersonal interactions. Still a dorkish comment though.

The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).

Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.
post #43 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).

Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.

1) It's funny but its not his problem that too many people have such a limited lexicon. I can't imagine any adult that would read his quote to not be able to consider that a word can have multiple meanings.

2) Sex and gender are oft used interchangeably but sex typically refers to biology whilst gender typically refers to cultural or social differences. This means that you are pretty stuck with male and female for sex but society can create a virtually unlimited number of genders. One general example, a transvestite could be male by sex and female by their gender association. Also, in case this isn't known in 2013, it appears that referring to another human being by their chosen gender role is apropos and trumps the sex role, and gender neuter 'it' doesn't appear to ever be appropriate, even among the fringe cultures that actually strive for androgyny.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/27/13 at 11:21pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #44 of 87
Sure, it's the phone that's doing the emasculating, and not Sergey himself.

http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.jpg
post #45 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Well, that's the "modern" meaning, but as recently as the 1970's it meant "unmanly."  That's just a very recent veneer of PC language really.  
The literal meaning of the word is to "remove one's masculinity."  

Besides, "weak" is hardly any different.  It's somehow culturally okay for women to be weak, but not men.  "Weak" is a dig against "wimpy" men. 
If you want to insult a woman you use macho adjectives like "pushy" and "angry," if you want to insult a man you call him "weak" or "sensitive."    

Which is why it's offensive, but also just so over-the-top stupid when you consider a skinny, nerdy geeky guy is who said it.  
It's just a horrible, horrible, thing to say IMO but more stupid than anything else.  

It doesn't even make sense at all because how is checking your phone all the time "weak" or unmanly?  Checking your phone all the time is actually a power position thing.  It's purpose is to let everyone in the room know that you have a cool smartphone, that you know how to use it, and that important messages might be on it for you.  It says that you are rich, important, and connected.  

It's about as manly as it gets really.

Never underestimate the level to which technology geeks, especially those in positions of capitalist power, can fail to comprehend human socialization and attempt to pressure to change it for purposes of making money. Look at the industrialization of food and the way industry tried, and succeeded, in re-programming housewives and people in general back in the 50s and on...
post #46 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCentric View Post

Sure, it's the phone that's doing the emasculating, and not Sergey himself.

http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.jpg

Thank you, Internet!
post #47 of 87
I wonder if Google's Motorola division got the news. Unless, of course, the "firewall" is still up between Google and Motorola. (Yeah. Right.)

Anyway, I think we're on the verge of a new Twitter hashtag.
#Glasshole anyone? Is that trending yet?

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #48 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

I wonder if Google's Motorola division got the news. Unless, of course, the "firewall" is still up between Google and Motorola. (Yeah. Right.)

Anyway, I think we're on the verge of a new Twitter hashtag.
#Glasshole anyone? Is that trending yet?
Trademark that term and make a twitter account before anyone else does!

EDIT - Nevermind there's already a twitter account for it that hasn't posted in three and half years. Shucks.
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #49 of 87
Mate, if someone comes into a public toilet wearing a pair of those Google Glass things, they are going head first into the urinal because of the constantly filming camera.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #50 of 87
Don't bother to take your glasses off Sergey, before I punch you. The hospital will cut those out afterwards
post #51 of 87
Google seems to be having trouble explaining what is its vision for its new hardware products.
He trashes the smartphone but the Glass depends on it to fully work. He says smartphones are antisocial but wants you wearing something that will always be in your face even if you are not using it, and everyone will be oblivious wether you are using it or not... great way to promote trust. Actually you will probably use it more since it will always be there.
Sure people stare at their smartphones and don%u2019t interact with others around, but Glass will be no different. People might seem to be staring at others but there are limits to how many things one person can pay attention to at the same time! Social behavior can only change if people choose to interact with others around. With technology always present there will always be another choice to not interact.
Brin says "Is this what you're meant to do with your body?" That is a perfect question for "Glass"!! Are we meant to use his technology in our body? What for? So that he can feed us what his company thinks is important, paid by advertisers? Now that is emasculating...
post #52 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Patent denied.

Previous artwork

 

 

Same here: definitively prior art! 1wink.gif

 

post #53 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

They need to be a lot less conspicuous to use/wear than currently pictured. The original DynaTAC was a bit odd when it was first released, but eventually as the devices became smaller and more widespread they also became less peculiar to the general public.


The usage model of a phone is different though. With Glass, it really needs to be on your face constantly. With a phone, users can put it away when it's not being used.

There will be improvements to design and cost, but it's a bit troubling that they're trying to sell the first version of Glass as fashionable, note the DVF promotional video. Models can make anything look good, but it seems like it's going to be the Wayne Knights of the world that will latch onto it and make us curse Dr. Brin for making them.

It is very impressive all that stuff can fit in a tiny body.
Edited by JeffDM - 2/28/13 at 5:08am
post #54 of 87
checking your phone is an addiction, put plastering it in front of your face is not?
post #55 of 87

the product that isn't even a product should be renamed the 'headband'. no glasses involved.

post #56 of 87

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #57 of 87

No, the guy's a jerk. I'm switching to Bing ...

post #58 of 87

I don't recall Apple ever trashing any of their current/past products in favor of their next unreleased gadget. That's more of Microsoft's territory. Example:

 

"XP Service Pack 3 is amazing. It really ties up all those loose security ends."

Three months later: "Vista is amazing. It really is the most secure Windows ever! XP is garbage which you should uninstall immediately!"

Two years later: "Windows 7 is the most secure Windows ever! What's Vista?"

 

PhilBoogie View Post
Don't bother to take your glasses off Sergey, before I punch you. The hospital will cut those out afterwards

"Sergey is so immature to make a statement like that!"

"Yeah, let's give 'im a swirlie!"

"What are you, a fag? Just punch him!"

 

Well done, way to take the high road, g'nite everyone.

 

SolipsismX View Post
dysamoria View Post
The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).
Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.

1) It's funny but its not his problem that too many people have such a limited lexicon. I can't imagine any adult that would read his quote to not be able to consider that a word can have multiple meanings.

2) Sex and gender are oft used interchangeably but sex typically refers to biology whilst gender typically refers to cultural or social differences. This means that you are pretty stuck with male and female for sex but society can create a virtually unlimited number of genders. One general example, a transvestite could be male by sex and female by their gender association. Also, in case this isn't known in 2013, it appears that referring to another human being by their chosen gender role is apropos and trumps the sex role, and gender neuter 'it' doesn't appear to ever be appropriate, even among the fringe cultures that actually strive for androgyny.

 

dysamoria is saying that the fluid spectrum of human sexuality is completely lost on the typical American, who sees anything outside of one or two clear classifications as something to be disgusted with and mock derisively.

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #59 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


From what I've seen in photos, videos, and articles from establishments commenting on those wearing them, the placement of the mirror is slightly below one's eyebrow and the users look like they're gazing up taking one's eyes off from whomever they may be interacting with.

So honestly, I'd rather have some person looking down being visibly rude and inconsiderate as opposed to some guy mimicking a zombie looking around aimlessly.

 

I agree totally.  I rather see someone "busy" by looking down, then deer in headlights look into space not knowing if they were thinking, ignoring, busy, etc.  If he was really serious about bashing the "smartphone" then he quit Android period.  Stop all production of the software to any smartphone.  Stop taking any money from sales of Android and all it's products.  Put a big red LED or flashing light in the middle of the "glasses" he is wearing so people know when someone is using them.  Then MAYBE someone may take you seriously.

 

Someone needs to tell him putting up a product that is 1500-2000 bucks for what a free to couple hundred dollar "smartphone" can do, and trying to sell the product with the cheaper item is "bad" for you.  Then why would someone spend massive amounts more for another product that would be "bad" for you???

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply
post #60 of 87
I thought he literally meant emasculating, as in, radiation frying the family jewels since my iphone is in my pocket most of the time.

;-)
post #61 of 87
Glass - the dumbest idea on Planet Earth. Keep talking, Sergei, but these are still going to be a big flop. Why? Because people don't want to wear glasses! We spend thousands of dollars on laser eye surgery and contact lenses to avoid wearing something that Google now wants everyone to wear?

That will be the day that I unplug.
post #62 of 87

OMG seriously? Toe shoes in public? The guy is an even bigger tool than I ever thought.

post #63 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Ridiculous. He just wants to sell his creepy stalker spectacles. These are some of the places where wearing google glass is emasculating because they won't let you in, or even let you hang around outside for fear that you are photographing/videoing/surveilling/casing the joint: Military bases, federal agencies, banks, concert halls, moviehouses and theatres, health clubs, sports arenas, airliners, museums, jewellers, national monuments, powerplants, water filtration plants, armaments factories, border crossings, airports, and most important of all, my house. I'm sure not talking to anyone who's wearing those creepy stalker glasses. And I'm certainly going to pull my daughter away if you talk to her with your creepy stalker glasses on.

Only a geek with severely impaired social skills would think that this product would be acceptable for use in your day-to-day business. If you're going to wear this all day long, you might as well put an "I'm creepy" sign on your forehead.

This is going to be a major flop because nobody wants to be around some guy who just might be taking pictures or videos of you.

I agree - although this says it best:

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #64 of 87
While he's in the 'emasculating' neighborhood, why not go with castration?
post #65 of 87
Goggle Glass, wearable Viagra.
post #66 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

This is going to be a major flop because nobody wants to be around some guy who just might be taking pictures or videos of you.

Paedos will love these glasses.

post #67 of 87
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

 

Why is the father of the cell phone holding a Samsung Galaxy S IV?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #68 of 87

If these appear to be popular once released, I wonder how long before we'll have the new Samsung Glass?

 

I would also find it more disconcerting if someone is using these and you think they're looking at you, but really not (much like people using BT earbuds whom you think are talking to you and aren't) as compared to looking down at their smartphone (or possibly a wrist-mounted device). I don't think Google Glass(es) will solve our interactivity "problem", but just change it, possibly making it even more awkward.

 

I personally thank the smartphone for allowing me to interact less with people, but I've always been anti-social.

post #69 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Paedos will love these glasses.

 

I read somewhere that taking pictures at kids football (soccer) games is a no-no in the UK because of paedo fears.

 

Around the US there are dslrs around the neck of half the parents and the other half has a phone...

post #70 of 87
What about us people who wear prescription glasses? Oh right, we're not cool anyway. There is an antisocial aspect to smart phones, but creepy glasses aren't the solution.
post #71 of 87
Innovation without disruption is novelty, not innovation. Google's Glass and Pixel are gimmicks, not products. Pure puerile posturing. When Apple produced the iPhone and iPad, it manned up with real live CE products that uprooted multiple market sectors. Google's prices tell it all: Even Google does not believe its toys are tools.

Meanwhile Google's completely asleep at the switch, and Samsung is milking Android for all its worth. And it's using those billions to build its own brand at Google's expense. Can a Samsung OS and search be far behind? Google has a tiger by the tail. It's a highly unstable relationship, more so than the Apple and Samsung competition, which is pretty well sorted out. And both Google and Samsung are proven to be duplicitous. Remember the iPhone.

Five years from now, the mobile market will include Apple, Samsung, and Google, in that order. And that's on a good day. Without its own hardware to compete with Samsung, Google will end up like Adobe, begging to get on other hardware platforms. Larry and Sergey better stop reading their own publicity notices and get on with the hard work of business.
post #72 of 87
Google Glass a Visionary Impairing Idea!

Now I see why Google thinks we need cars to drive themselves! Amazing Googles stock goes up when these are their visionary ideas!

Someone will be hurt by both of Googles "Visionary" ideas and then the stock will be "Free Falling!"

Personal Injury Lawyers start your engines!

Google, Microsoft, etc. dream up things I never wanted, Apple dreams up things I never knew I wanted!

http://youtu.be/i5jTH89HjTA
post #73 of 87

they're desperately trying to sell this idiotic gadget as a mainstream device.  ain't gonna happen.

post #74 of 87
Am I the only one that thinks those glasses look massively stupid? If I want to wear glasses I go to a designer house to buy some, not some nerd-looking Bluetooth-alike headset that seems to have a AAA battery attached to it.
 
I don't think that even the finished product will look fashionable, just incredibly stupid. Also, a good way to know about the stuff your looking at: ask.
 
BTW, if you care about fashion and not looking like and idiot, this is why you don't wear anything wireless/Bluetooth unless you're driving--and still.
post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"The cell phone is a nervous habit," Brin explained. "If I smoked, I'd probably smoke instead, it'd look cooler. But I whip this out and look as if I have something important to do."

 

This line is true for sure.  I see it all the time.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Mate, if someone comes into a public toilet wearing a pair of those Google Glass things, they are going head first into the urinal because of the constantly filming camera.

 

I saw someone walked into a busy washroom at the ski hill the other weekend wearing a go-pro. I've never seen someone get so many simultaneous stink-eyes.

post #77 of 87

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef View Post

Meanwhile Google's completely asleep at the switch, and Samsung is milking Android for all its worth. And it's using those billions to build its own brand at Google's expense. Can a Samsung OS and search be far behind? Google has a tiger by the tail. It's a highly unstable relationship, more so than the Apple and Samsung competition, which is pretty well sorted out. And both Google and Samsung are proven to be duplicitous. Remember the iPhone.

 

Anecdotally, from what I've seen, "Galaxy" has overtaken "Android" as a brand big time.  Samsung has a lot of choices if they want to ditch Google - FirefoxOS, Sailfish OS and Ubuntu Touch are all coming along well, not to mention that Samsung is working on Tizen.  Tizen has the holy grail Samsung needs to ditch Android - the capability to run unmodified Android apps.

post #78 of 87

Quote:

Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


Look at the industrialization of food and the way industry tried, and succeeded, in re-programming housewives and people in general back in the 50s and on...

Ahh yes... the good old days...

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluefish86 View Post

 

I saw someone walked into a busy washroom at the ski hill the other weekend wearing a go-pro. I've never seen someone get so many simultaneous stink-eyes.

uhh......

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #79 of 87
Isn't there a saying about trying to remove a speck from someone's eye while you have a plank in your own eye? Brin is taking that saying to a literal level now.

It's funny how inept other CEO's at framing new technology in way that can connect to people? Steve jobs was a master at it. But Brin ends up just sounding like a condescending nerd. It's a fine line between criticizing the shortcomings of technology and criticizing people's choices of technology. Is he really criticizing that touching a flat surface isn't what we're 'meant to do with our bodies' while he's talking to someone with a chunk of plastic sticking out from his eye, like some kind of cyborg pirate?
post #80 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Some people purposely don't pull out their phone for every little thing.   I personally don't do text messaging.  I know some do, but I don't.  If I did, it would only be with a VERY limited number of people and it would be only for serious issues.

 

That's how I try to use my smartphone.  I limit with whom gets the number in the first place.

 

I also don't do Facebook and Twitter. Those are for kids with nothing better to do.

 

FB and Twitter for kids?  I don't use them either but I'm seeing too many adult/professional kids around me.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's Brin says smartphones are antisocial, 'emasculating'