I 'm just wondering

[G+_George Kozi]

I'm just wondering...

 

All those people who say "Google Glass makes you look ridiculous" are actually saying "I fear Google Glass would make me look ridiculous" ? 

 

Is the problem that they can't see themselves wearing them because of their own self image? Or because of their age?

[G+_Marc Kline]

I can only speak for myself. I would not enjoy wearing Google Glass in public for the same sort of reason that I don't wear a Bluetooth earpiece in public. I, rightly or wrongly, see it as a signal that the user is apt to abandon their physical environment and the people in it for a more important conversation. So, while at a reasonable price point Google might sell a lot of units, I think there are many very sturdy hurdles in the way of mass adoption of use in every day public life... only one of which is a superficial fear of looking "dorky".

[G+_George Kozi]

evangelism happens on both sides of the argument, does it not? And unless one has actually placed the device on his nose, it is empty evangelism.

[G+_George Kozi]

it may be a mistake, but people will take sides. It's human nature. You look at something and based on criteria that are personal, you make a preliminary decision if you would like it or not.

 

btw...I wasn't the one who first mentioned evangelism...  and besides, there are other meanings of the word, beside the obvious one.

[G+_Damian Mongru]

Marc Kline Abandoning their physical environment for a more important conversation - does this not happen all the time with people constantly checking there phones? It's not just a bluetooth headset problem. I feel bluetooth headsets are more for handsfree conversation when needed, rather than abandoning the physical world. There are a few main problems cited for Google Glass e.g. looks, privacy, distraction and disconnect from physical world, but these will be weighed against functionality, which nobody knows yet as they haven't tried it and the apps haven't been created.

[G+_Marc Kline]

Damian Mongru Yes, it does happen with smartphones, but there is still that point of resistance where a person must pull the phone out of their pocket or purse to use it. My curiosity is more about how our dynamics of interaction with both our devices and everything else/everybody around us changes when that point of resistance is removed. I carefully select which events I want to trigger a notification for on my phone because I don't want to constantly be interrupted and have to pull my phone out only to find that the event was not important (e.g. John just played you in Words with Friends!). Would I be less selective if there was not that point-of-resistance? Will other people? How will this affect our social dynamics in the physical world should people wear these throughout the day?

[G+_Damian Mongru]

Marc Kline You're concerned with this notion of disruption, so you carefully choose which notifications you would want to see. However, you see people who have their phones in their hand all the time or place it in on the table as soon as they sit down anywhere. As soon as their phone beeps or vibrates they immediately pick it up and check the message. Would Glass be less disruptive in this case?

 

As I say, we don't know what the affects will be until we get to use it, and see how useful the apps are (which don't even exist yet). From the SXSW presentation Google realises the problems of notifications and how disruptive this may be.

 

I guess it is all comes down to social norms, and what people find acceptable. For me, the conversation in the real world is most important and everything else can wait - I don't have a smartphone so I am not bombarded with notifications and messages, so it is easy for me to have this rule.

 

As for your central thesis - I can only envisage more distractions - and I don't like it! You're right, we'll have to wait and see how the social dynamic changes.