or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Using Google Glass: A series of awkward encounters
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Using Google Glass: A series of awkward encounters - Page 2

post #41 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by coollector View Post

The red light should definitively be hardwired, and if the led is dead, then the camera is dead too.

 

Google has to take this privacy issue very seriously, because it could kill the product.

 

On a side note, if I were a bar owner, I wouldn't ban the GG, but I'd probably put some tape on the camera to tranquilize the other clients.

 

The product is already dead. Any business owner who doesn't ban Glass is asking for trouble. If I were a bar owner, I'd ban them and have the bouncers toss anyone wearing them, and if they "accidentally" get broken in the process, oops!

post #42 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

By definition, if you're wearing Google Glass, you're a dork. So, it doesn't matter how cool you are before you put it on, once you do you're a dork.

 

Many would say that we're all dorks for posting on an Internet forum.

post #43 of 231
Google Glass should have a lamp which lights whenever the camera is in use. Hardwired (like Apple does on MacBooks) so the camera can't be powered without the lamp lighting. Also a sensor beside it to check that the lamp hasn't been painted over. Rigging a workaround would be possible, but visible enough that you'd be caught and embarrassed to have done it.

As for awkward, the most awkward thing to me would be speaking to it, not just wearing it. Ditto for Siri, which is why in public I use Siri raised to my head like a phone call, or not at all.

Even more awkward: people noticing you with an Apple iWatch, and realizing you're willing to pay $99-$199 for a mere WATCH just because it does a bunch of stuff beyond telling time! 1tongue.gif (I'm predicting that will be the reaction of many bloggers to the iWatch... including those who stayed silent for years as people wore far more expensive watches that did nothing but show off the wearer's credit limit.)
post #44 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

Many would say that we're all dorks for posting on an Internet forum.

 

Maybe, but our neighbors, coworkers, people on the street don't necessarily know that. It's one thing to be a dork, it's quite another for everyone to realize it. Letting your dork flag fly is probably not the best policy.

post #45 of 231

There is apparently a little white light that is visible inside the lens display when the Glass camera is recording.

 

However, light or no light, just the sight of a camera lens will be enough to make people leery or even confrontational. The folks here need to understand that not everyone out there is waiting to see a recording light. They may even ask, "Are you recording me?" and even if you tell them 'no' and explain that there is a light when it's recording, many won't likely trust you even then.

 

In situations where you're talking to a stranger, it's not really relevant.

post #46 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Why not a brand new word to differentiate Google users? You know, the kind of person who is truly a sheep and is too stupid to want technology to integrate with their life... instead of the other way around.

Why not just call them googs?

 

A word describing a Google Glass user and, by associated implication, a dork... could be a "gawk".

 

From Wiktionary... "gawk" -  A Middle-Appalachian Americanism, since late 1800s, possibly misconstruing French "gauche," and leading to use of adj gawky for a person or process that is uncoordinated or awkward.

 

Sounds about right to me  ;~)

post #47 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

The product is already dead. Any business owner who doesn't ban Glass is asking for trouble.

You're optimistic. I'm 80% sure that the GG will take off.

 

I'm not interested the least by this product, but I'm very concerned by the camera, because I'm a camera phobic (I don't even let my family take a picture of me).

post #48 of 231
I have to disagree with #chadmatic's statement, "Google Glass will become a prime example of a consumer product launch that failed by taking a technology too far." I would say it has nothing to do with "taking a technology too far." Rather, it's failure will come from trying to isolate technology from people. The tech is almost irrelevant. The problem is with people and their psychology. I would contend that people don't want to have the impression, whether true or not, that they are being spied upon. The design of Google Glass allows people to assume that it is a head-mounted camera, and that people in front of it are being photographed without their permission. This also will make people suspicious of the person who appears to be photographing them: "Why do they want to take pictures of me????"

On the other hand, I do agree with #chadmatic's comment, "I can see professional applications where this will prove invaluable." I can see it used in certain specific situations ranging from surgical work to auto mechanics. At the estimated price, it only makes sense as a business expense that can be written off.
post #49 of 231
They look SO DORKY! It would be hard to not to bitch-slap someone wearing them. Google Glass = Google flop.
post #50 of 231
Just thinking about the reaction at the cinema....even if you didn't record the movie you could watch it live with your friends / family on a video call!
post #51 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by coollector View Post

The red light should definitively be hardwired, and if the led is dead, then the camera is dead too.

 

Google has to take this privacy issue very seriously, because it could kill the product.

 

On a side note, if I were a bar owner, I wouldn't ban the GG, but I'd probably put some tape on the camera to tranquilize the other clients.

 

AFAIK, "hardwired" is pretty rare. On computers, late model MacBook Pros do this (the LED is physically hardwired to the power line going to the camera, so the camera cannot be on without lighting up the LED). Most PC web cams have software controlled LEDs.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #52 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Google Glass should have a lamp which lights whenever the camera is in use. Hardwired (like Apple does on MacBooks) so the camera can't be powered without the lamp lighting. Also a sensor beside it to check that the lamp hasn't been painted over. Rigging a workaround would be possible, but visible enough that you'd be caught and embarrassed to have done it.

As for awkward, the most awkward thing to me would be speaking to it, not just wearing it. Ditto for Siri, which is why in public I use Siri raised to my head like a phone call, or not at all.

Even more awkward: people noticing you with an Apple iWatch, and realizing you're willing to pay $99-$199 for a mere WATCH just because it does a bunch of stuff beyond telling time! 1tongue.gif (I'm predicting that will be the reaction of many bloggers to the iWatch... including those who stayed silent for years as people wore far more expensive watches that did nothing but show off the wearer's credit limit.)

 

There's almost no way it could be designed so you can't defeat the light.

 

There are at least two points in favor of a watch over glasses, one positive, the other negative. First, positively, a watch is much more discreet that a borg headpiece. Secondly, the negative point, is that, as stated previously in this thread, wearing glasses is a pain for a number of reasons, whereas a watch isn't as annoying.

 

I'm not sold on the watch, though, because it's hard to see how it could be useful enough to be worth wearing. But I'm absolutely certain, that glasses are DOA. 

post #53 of 231
Google Glass= Bluetooth ear piece=annoying
post #54 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwhAgain View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

I've only seen two people wearing glass so far and they looked like such stereotypical nerds that I was put off for life.

Google needed to give the first batch to cool people. Not to a bunch of dorks.
when I stood in line to buy iPad 1 on its launch day, the percentage of dorky looking people there appeared to be much higher than general populace.

I guess it takes one to know one. ;-)
post #55 of 231
I bought apples square touch screen ipod and an alum wrist band enclosure and used the iPod to listen to music while snowboarding and working out and love it. The iwatch will be a hit. All I needed was the ability to see who was calling my iPhone on it and it would be perfect.
post #56 of 231

The thing that I notice about all these first person Glass experiences we are hearing about is that there is literally nothing they can do that cannot already be done on the cell phone except … spying on people without their knowledge.  

 

People have a right to be cautious around glass users for that reason.  The video hang-outs could be done easier with an iPhone, the "virtual tours" is just a matter of switching to the rear facing camera, and they have the added advantage of being able to switch back to the person anytime they want.  Looking things up is just as easy and with Siri can be hands free.  

 

Glass is slightly more hands-free than the cell phone in some situations, but so what?  Is that really worth $1600?  If it were a $30 add-on for your smartphone that you only use when you want to be hands free (or record people without their knowledge), then I think a lot might buy one, but otherwise it makes no sense IMO. 

post #57 of 231
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... and convincing everyone else that wearing a camera in public isn't a violation of privacy — is going to be difficult.

 

Try this experiment.  Hold you iPhone, Galaxy S4, or whatever, at eye level at all times 

while you go to the store, get gas, go about your normal business.  See how annoyed people get.

I suspect they'll make some snide remarks about getting a life or virtual thumb-sucking.

 

But Glass, being mounted in a glasses frame, makes it look like you're trying to hide a camera.

And the appearance of hiding it is the issue.  If you were walking around holding a DSLR at eye

level instead, you'd get the occasional "no photos here, buddy," and not much else.  At least

people around you would know you had a camera and when you were taking photos.

Big difference.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #58 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Google Glass should have a lamp which lights whenever the camera is in use. Hardwired (like Apple does on MacBooks) so the camera can't be powered without the lamp lighting. Also a sensor beside it to check that the lamp hasn't been painted over. Rigging a workaround would be possible, but visible enough that you'd be caught and embarrassed to have done it …

 

I disagree with this.  As much as I don't want to be filmed secretly myself, I think it's an invasion of privacy and personal freedoms to do this.  I particularly don't like the way in which cellphone and smartphone manufacturers were forced (yes forced) to make the camera make a shutter sound because of these same over the top concerns.  I think it's inherently wrong whenever you are forcing things like that.  No one should have the right to tell me what equipment I can use or buy or what I can do with it unless they can prove that I'm some kind of problem or causing some kind of problem.  

 

"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.  

 

Just the other day there were a bunch of thugs on my train harassing an older woman and I knew that taking a picture of them would just make them turn to me, possibly for a beating, or even worse.  It would exacerbate an already tense situation.  So I had to switch to doing that thing where you take a movie (silent if you turn the sound down), while holding the phone in such a way that it looked like I wasn't taking a movie.  So what results is unusable "jelly" video with a thumb in the way half the time.  

 

A clear picture of the thugs would have been very helpful in getting them caught.  I want to always be able to turn off the shutter sound if I want or need to and rely on myself to protect myself from any surreptitious filming.  If I can't, I'm basically living in a Fascist society IMO.   Besides which, it's always been okay to film in public up until the big government crackdown after 911.  Public space is public space.  If we start saying that no one can film anyone else without their consent then … well we're fucked basically.  Seig Heil.  

post #59 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.

 

... If we start saying that no one can film anyone else without their consent then … well we're fucked basically.

I HATE your reasoning. And your example of thugs harassing an old woman, it didn't convince me. A picture wouldn't have changed anything. Too bad for you it's not possible to buy e-bullocks.


Edited by coollector - 7/7/13 at 1:28pm
post #60 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.  

 

Just the other day there were a bunch of thugs on my train harassing an older woman and I knew that taking a picture of them would just make them turn to me, possibly for a beating, or even worse.  It would exacerbate an already tense situation.  So I had to switch to doing that thing where you take a movie (silent if you turn the sound down), while holding the phone in such a way that it looked like I wasn't taking a movie.  So what results is unusable "jelly" video with a thumb in the way half the time.  

 

A clear picture of the thugs would have been very helpful in getting them caught.  I want to always be able to turn off the shutter sound if I want or need to and rely on myself to protect myself from any surreptitious filming.

 

False dilemma. Secret filming is not the only way to save the old lady on the train and catch the bad guys.

On the contrary: you want more transparency about filming in public:

 

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #61 of 231
Curious if the camera includes infrared - cue all the "see through clothes" comments.
post #62 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by coollector View Post

Thank you, I did not know that.

 

I hope that Google made it very hard to hack, otherwise it's useless.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Hey, it's open!

 

The Glass themselves are very easy to hack, although modifying will prevent them from getting the automatic over the air update.

 

At Google i/o 2013, there was a session which showed putting Ubuntu Linux on Glass and using the temple trackpad as the mouse for a desktop linux environment.

 

The bootloader is unlockable, and it is easy to root. I do not know if the light that turns on with camera use is hackable in software.

post #63 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post

... At Google i/o 2013, there was a session which showed putting Ubuntu Linux on Glass and using the temple trackpad as the mouse for a desktop linux environment. ...

 

lol.gif

 

I think that sums up perfectly who will want these.

post #64 of 231
... Unfortunately, getting over the idea that wearers aren't ignoring the people around them ? and convincing everyone else that wearing a camera in public isn't a violation of privacy ? is going to be difficult. In my early tests, I'm not sold.

 

You are not alone...

http://www.hulu.com/watch/486603

 

If Google is managed by adults, they will not release this product.   LOL

There are thousands of No's for every Yes...

Glass is a definite No.


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 7/7/13 at 2:17pm
post #65 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

The thing that I notice about all these first person Glass experiences we are hearing about is that there is literally nothing they can do that cannot already be done on the cell phone except … spying on people without their knowledge.  

 

We're just beginning to figure out what this kind of tech might be useful for.

 

One of the pioneers of personal devices like these was a shy researcher who could never remember people's names.  But, just like the Big Bang Theory guys, he needed to do so in order to help get grants at university mixers.

 

So he built a portable computer hooked to a camera in his glasses, along with face recognition software.  When he met someone, he recorded their face and introduction.  Later, the process was reversed so that his earpiece would read back the intro for that person.

 

Now imagine if he had to hold up his phone and say, "Wait, let me snap another picture of you so I can remember who you are"

 

Also imagine how nice this will be for the deaf and hard of hearing, if they had a constant text to speech view... and visual alerts of approaching emergency vehicles.

 

Quote:
Glass is slightly more hands-free than the cell phone in some situations, but so what?  Is that really worth $1600?

 

Maybe not now.  It's early tech.  It's like when microwave ovens or VCRs first came out.  It'll get smaller, cheaper, better and less noticeable.

 

One thing for sure... we cannot imagine today what will be considered normal ten years from now, much less in fifty or a hundred.

 

Perhaps one day everyone will have recorders, and you'll have opt-out field areas around you set up.  Who knows? 

 


Edited by KDarling - 7/7/13 at 2:20pm
post #66 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by coollector View Post

I HATE your reasoning. And your example of thugs harassing an old woman, it didn't convince me. A picture wouldn't have changed anything. Too bad for you it's not possible to buy e-bullocks.

 

I HATE ONIONS! (which is about as relevant as your comment to this discussion).

post #67 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

I HATE ONIONS! (which is about as relevant as your comment to this discussion).

Seriously?

post #68 of 231

I'm about "this close" to deleting this site from my bookmarks.

post #69 of 231

I just had a flash of the demographics that use BT earpieces using GG.

 

Sigh.

post #70 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

I'm about "this close" to deleting this site from my bookmarks.

 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/486603

post #71 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

False dilemma. Secret filming is not the only way to save the old lady on the train and catch the bad guys.

On the contrary: you want more transparency about filming in public:

 

 

Well perhaps I didn't make it well, but this is part of my point about Google glass in general.  Despite the fact that none of us particularly *want* to be recorded, recording in a public area has always been allowed and there is simply no reasonable expectation that it shouldn't be so.  There are cameras everywhere nowadays and while most people don't notice them (and to that degree they are "secret"), they are no different from Google glass.  

 

There aren't always giant signs like this to indicate that cameras are present either.  This is more the "old-school way of doing it. These signs exist primarily to scare off criminals or make them see that going somewhere else would be more profitable.  In many cases, heavy use of signage is actually a bluff and an indication that there aren't any real cameras present.  

 

For instance, (again in my country/area), there are cameras in all the public areas of the building that I live in.  There are cameras at all the train and transit stations.  There are cameras on the busses and trains themselves.  There are cameras in every public area of the Institution I currently work at.  There might be some signs in some of these areas, but I don't recall ever seeing them and there is certainly no legal obligation (again, at least in my area/country) that they be marked or that warning signs be placed.  Other than when I'm home, or when I'm actually in my office, I'm recorded pretty much 24/7.  

 

Signs or not, visible cameras or not, audible shutters or not, I think the bottom line is that there is simply no expectation of privacy in a public area and one should assume that one's activities can both be seen by others and recorded by others. It's not like *knowing* that you are being recorded, you can opt out of it or do anything about it.  It's not like there is somewhere else you can go where you *aren't* recorded.  Every public area is recorded or has the possibility of being recorded.  

 

There is no "danger" from allowing people to record or take pictures in public surreptitiously or otherwise.  

 

Perverts will be perverts regardless of the laws or technology.  A guy who wants to film your kids playing in the park, or take pictures up someones dress is still going to do it regardless.  There are more than enough ways around it technologically and guess who knows those ways?  That's right, Mr. Pervert. The danger is the pervert themselves and the fact that he's sitting in a public park, not whether he has cleverly figured out a way to take a picture of your kid.  It's not like stopping him recording makes it safer for your kid.  He'd just sit there and "mentally" record your kid.  

 

The danger is the pervert not the camera. 

post #72 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by coollector View Post

Seriously?

 

Well you just made what I thought was a weird emotional response that contained no information or argument.  

And yes, I seriously hate onions. 

 

Anyway, I've made my point a few times so I'm going to shut up now although I find it disturbing how easily you people are willing to give up your freedom based on an emotional response to technology.  If people didn't want to be recorded the line in the sand should have been drawn a long time ago when the first camera went up.  

 

If it's okay for the "authorities" and businesses to have cameras (secret or otherwise), in a public area, then surely it's alright for a private citizen is it not?  What the heck was World War II about then?  

(Freedom and Democracy being the correct answer)

 

I also find it heavily ironic that it always ends up being me arguing for freedom on a forum that is supposedly dominated by Americans.  1rolleyes.gif

post #73 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

There are cameras everywhere nowadays and while most people don't notice them (and to that degree they are "secret"), they are no different from Google glass.

The personal managing the public cameras have to follow strict rules. When you're filmed by public cameras, the video won't end up on the net.

post #74 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

I'm about "this close" to deleting this site from my bookmarks.

 

Unless...? (All threats are idle threats. If that was something you were going to do, you'd have done it by now.)

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #75 of 231

I also don't think this will become a successful product. Technology isn't there, yet. People aren't there, yet. Without the first it will be even harder to achieve the latter.

 

For now, there are very, very limited uses for this technology. I haven't seen anything Glass can do, my Smartphone can't do multiple times better and faster. Even simple things such as calling someone or looking something up. Speech instructions are problematic and still don't work that well. Apart from the fact that you might not always want to tell everyone around you what you're currently doing or whom you want to call. Again, technology isn't there, yet. Input and interaction is just too limited.

 

Classic computing devices, even those so called post-PC devices have an interesting characteristic. Whenever you use them, you clearly indicate those around you, that you do so. You don't look suspicious. You look "normal" and your posture tells everyone around you "hey, i'm not available for a chat at the moment, cause i'm clearly checking my email". This is even true for other forms of wearable computing, such as watches, etc.

 

Glass is just different, it's creepy. It is not immediately apparent whether you are engaged into something or not. You look stupid. When you stare at your screen for longer than a second you look like a creep or a zombie. Most of all however, people feel threatened by this face mounted device more than they feel threatened by Smartphones, Cameras or even Smart Watches. Simply because taking a picture with any of those other devices requires a clearly distinctive gesture. Doing this with Glass doesn't. I really don't blame people for rejecting it. I wouldn't want to talk to anyone with Glass, either.

 

Purely technologically, I don't think it is there, yet either. Not even close. I also don't think having a device mounted permanently in your field of view on one eye only is good or healthy, and there have been opinions about that as well. I believe it will take at least another decade for the technology to mature, similar to how tablet PCs have taken a long time to get to what they are today. When the day comes, where we can keep on wearing regular glasses, however with a built in HUD, which comes up whenever we want to and when interaction comes to a level of really advanced eye tracking or brainwaves or whatever, then the world might be ready for it.

 

As it stands, this is simply a creepy toy with questionable benefits.

post #76 of 231

I don't care when I'm filmed by public cameras. Probably nobody will ever see the images unless a drama happens.

 

But it's a completely different situation if a guy takes a video of me with his GG. He's not doing it for security purposes. What's his purpose?

post #77 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

What the heck was World War II about then?  

(Freedom and Democracy being the correct answer)

 

Yes, and God was on our side... oh please, those are fairytales for children...

post #78 of 231

The technology will improve to the point they will look like normal glasses, the cost will go down and most people who enjoy to wear glasses will buy them. With everyone wearing them everywhere you go, privacy issues will disappear, since the offended will be recording as well and those who still complain will never go out in public. Eventually you won't need to wear anything as they will become implants and the NSA will know your every move!

post #79 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Even more awkward: people noticing you with an Apple iWatch, and realizing you're willing to pay $99-$199 for a mere WATCH just because it does a bunch of stuff beyond telling time! 1tongue.gif (I'm predicting that will be the reaction of many bloggers to the iWatch... including those who stayed silent for years as people wore far more expensive watches that did nothing but show off the wearer's credit limit.)

 

Of the 5 watches I've purchased over the past 2 decades, I think 1 cost less than $200.  So what was your point?

post #80 of 231
I've been a tech-geek since the early '60s, but Glass seems too invasive (potentially). I think it will be viewed as with suspicion even by those who understand the underlying technologies.

Just as one has to ask permission to record a phone call, I think Glass will need at least a conspicuous blinking red light so that the person or persons being photographed, recorded or videoed will know and the wearer will need to get either their recorded or written consent.

The example of Glass's use in surgery is a great one. Nevertheless, I believe it will be viewed as intrusive and illegal on the streets - as well it should be!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Using Google Glass: A series of awkward encounters