While I am trying to applaud continued research in wearables and enterprise tools, the fundamental problems with Google Glass remain:
1. Big and presumably weighty battery in the back on one side -- not balanced.
2. Aesthetically unbalanced as well.
3. Google camera recording you at all times.
I'm pretty sure that doctor does not start his exams by saying "by the way, these glasses have a video camera in them that is recording you and sending that information to Google," so … I can only speak for myself, but Google's privacy policies (or lack thereof) and medical exams are a gigantic nope for me, and in general I will need to be asked to opt-in and give explicit permission (which will never happen) before looking at or speaking to anyone wearing Google Glasses.
Exactly... Most companies I know and have worked at don't really want everything that they own being sent to the mother ship, and that's a huge NFW for corporations that value their data and their intellectual property.
When I had a business and installed servers, and was talking about backup plans (they had RAID 1 and 5 arrays in them), they said, "I'm not worried, the failure systems you have are good enough!" to which I said, "OK, what if someone breaks in and steals your server? Do you want all of that data gone? Your insurance will cover the hardware, but how valuable is your data?"
No one, from Intel to IBM to anybody that works with Defense will let these things on their property while they call home as part of their firmware. Google makes Huawei look like pikers in this regard.
Of course companies don't want everything they own turned over to some other company for their own uses. You're introducing a false dilemma since Google Glass Enterprise doesn't do that, obviously. Proof? They're used in medical offices and hospitals. Did you watch the video the AI article linked?
I read the /partners link you posted, and the /glass main page. Nowhere do I see anything that even remotely describes a scenario in which customers (or "partners", does glass even have customers that aren't "partners"?), can take advantage of glass without data being sent back to google.
You're very good at finding any and all data related to google, and I'm interested enough to ask if you know how this works. I'm not going to dig through pages and pages of ToS, I already do too much of that every week as it is.
The OP said "everything going back to (Google)". Of course diagnostic data would be exchanged, and particularly so for a device that's still in the testing stages. The clients private information no unless they've actively and specifically asked for it, and that is what that poster seemed to be warning about.
I'll assume you have no issue with Apple collecting "diagnostic" data and I don't see anywhere that Glass Enterprise does anything more than that baring a client's request. I don't think you saw anything different than that did you?
LOL. After all these years, you actually think I have no issues with Apple collecting diagnostic data? You definitely haven't been listening, because I am nothing if not consistent. No, I do not give Apple diagnostic data, and in fact I do not let my computers or mobile devices arbitrarily talk to Apple servers; only when there's a specific need, and even then, only in ways that cannot be associated with me personally. But enough on that topic, which I'm pretty sure we've already discussed at length in the past.
Nothing you said here actually points to a reference that refutes the OP's assertion that "everything goes back to google", and I was wondering if you could point me to something specifically that does refute that assertion. As a contrary example, when people use something like google docs, not only is diagnostic data sent and analyzed, but the data in the documents themselves is clearly sent back and forth and available for analysis. My question is whether this is different with the latest glass product. One can easily imagine industry scenarios where companies would love to have the AR functionality, but would most definitely not be okay with even diagnostic data being sent back to the home office.
The whole issue of what diagnostic data is comprised of is also a concern, and I wonder if you have a reference for that. Crash logs are one thing, but location and directional data, even if not married to the actual camera imagery, is another. There are a lot of fine lines.
Comments