My comment in response to Robert Scoble 's review of Google Glass

[G+_Marc Kline]

My comment in response to Robert Scoble's review of Google Glass. Just thought I'd port it here for discussion since Leo has voiced similar concerns on-air...

 

"Will Google Glass be a hit? I'm ambivalent about this prospect. While I'm excited about the technology and some personal uses I can imagine, the idea of using them in public just does not appeal to me. And furthermore, the idea of others using them in public provokes a visceral sense of dread.

 

From my personal perspective: I sometimes am very conscious of my use of my smartphone in public.  I rarely walk around using it while I'm out and about, because I don't like the feeling of being "that guy"... That guy who is there but not really there... that guy who is less concerned with the people and things surrounding him physically, and who is more concerned with his virtual world.

 

Others have no problem with this type of thing. I think of the guys (mostly men I've seen) who talk through their Bluetooth earpiece at someone while checking out at the convenience store.

 

I suspect that the that-guy personality type will love this technology. Me? I still find it compelling, but I imagine my use case for it to be far from "always on". One of the perceived problems this device seems meant to address is the hassle of having to take your phone out of your pocket and exert effort to interact with its screen. I too, feel that "pain" like everyone else, but deep down I'm glad that it still requires some effort to get to my digital world. Call me a masochist.

 

So, I feel a bit sad thinking of an always-on future in society at large, when the public users of future Bluetooth earpiece type devices are the norm, not the exception to it. It still feels good to get out onto the street and at least occasionally make eye contact with people you pass, have the door held for you, make small chit chat with strangers, etc. It's already quite possible to feel alienated while surrounded by thousands or millions of people. I worry that soon it will be that much easier.

 

Now, all of this begs the question? Am I am old man at age 31? Am I a luddite, despite the fact that I miss my computer when I'm away from it and that I listen to hours and hours of tech podcasts every week? I don't think so, but neither am I technology's blindfolded cheerleader.

 

I look forward to the continued dialog about Google Glass, and +Robert Scoble, I enjoy your enthusiasm about this device. But I really hope that should they be a "hit", there will be an equally popular accessory for Glass: the Google Glass case, for safe storage while in public. And might I suggest that they go in a front pocket, even if the phone is getting in the way."

[G+_Josh White]

Some thoughtful comments there Mark Kline

I love technology but also have some similar reservations with an 'always on' world. Will be interesting to see how committed scoble is to his goal of never wanting to go another day without having a wearable computer... And also how society adapts to such trends once they become available to normal people.

[G+_Josh White]

Some thoughtful comments there Mark Kline

I love technology but also have some similar reservations with an 'always on' world. Will be interesting to see how committed scoble is to his goal of never wanting to go another day without having a wearable computer... And also how society adapts to such trends once they become available to normal people.

[G+_Dan Clark]

I just don't see why we can't do both. Embrace technology without ignoring reality. I'm constantly on my phone in public, and also constantly making eye contact with people. I always hold doors open for others. It's not hard :-)

[G+_Dan Clark]

I just don't see why we can't do both. Embrace technology without ignoring reality. I'm constantly on my phone in public, and also constantly making eye contact with people. I always hold doors open for others. It's not hard :-)

[G+_Marc Kline]

People make a similar "why can't we do both" claim about talking on their phones while driving. Meanwhile, Leo, just yesterday, mentioned this study that many of us have seen before - the one that shows that the cause and problems of distracted driving seem less about having your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road as they do "where your mind is".

 

Sure, you can do things with your hands (drive, hold doors for people) while your mind is another place (in conversation with another person on the phone, checking your Twitter feed). I'm sure that you can, for a brief second, shift focus from your virtual world to your physical, when some signal arises from the noise. We humans are good at recognizing patterns without having to devote full attention to what we're looking at.

 

But my point isn't to say that we can't be polite enough to eachother in one world while we're walking around in another.  Let me implicate myself here... I work on a farm and wear ear protection often while I'm driving the tractor. I found a pair that lets me pipe music and podcasts in, and it's really enriched my many hours of tractor time every week. But I've caught myself in the habit of wearing them even when I'm not on the tractor. I might walk by co-workers and smile and say hello. How polite of me! ... but sometimes I realize that I spent the whole day without having any type of substantial face-to-face exchange with anyone other than my girlfriend. I don't like that feeling. Others might be ok with it (I suspect especially the introverted geek archetype) and would not mind this as the norm. To each his own, and if this is where things are "naturally" going, so be it. I just won't like it!

[G+_Marc Kline]

People make a similar "why can't we do both" claim about talking on their phones while driving. Meanwhile, Leo, just yesterday, mentioned this study that many of us have seen before - the one that shows that the cause and problems of distracted driving seem less about having your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road as they do "where your mind is".

 

Sure, you can do things with your hands (drive, hold doors for people) while your mind is another place (in conversation with another person on the phone, checking your Twitter feed). I'm sure that you can, for a brief second, shift focus from your virtual world to your physical, when some signal arises from the noise. We humans are good at recognizing patterns without having to devote full attention to what we're looking at.

 

But my point isn't to say that we can't be polite enough to eachother in one world while we're walking around in another.  Let me implicate myself here... I work on a farm and wear ear protection often while I'm driving the tractor. I found a pair that lets me pipe music and podcasts in, and it's really enriched my many hours of tractor time every week. But I've caught myself in the habit of wearing them even when I'm not on the tractor. I might walk by co-workers and smile and say hello. How polite of me! ... but sometimes I realize that I spent the whole day without having any type of substantial face-to-face exchange with anyone other than my girlfriend. I don't like that feeling. Others might be ok with it (I suspect especially the introverted geek archetype) and would not mind this as the norm. To each his own, and if this is where things are "naturally" going, so be it. I just won't like it!

[G+_Marc Kline]

Josh White If anyone would would really, truly, wish to be immersed in an augmented reality at all times, it would be him, wouldn't it? Even at a low price point, I see lots of obstacles in the way of Google Glass attracting enough buyers to hit the critical mass required for "hit" status like the iPhone achieved. It seems like the smartglass category has to answer a lot more challenging and problematic questions than the smartphone category ever did.

[G+_Marc Kline]

Josh White If anyone would would really, truly, wish to be immersed in an augmented reality at all times, it would be him, wouldn't it? Even at a low price point, I see lots of obstacles in the way of Google Glass attracting enough buyers to hit the critical mass required for "hit" status like the iPhone achieved. It seems like the smartglass category has to answer a lot more challenging and problematic questions than the smartphone category ever did.

[G+_Dan Clark]

Marc Kline I see what you're saying.  I agree that you can't always be plugged in (your driving example is perfect, and there are plenty more).  I just think there might be a happy medium somewhere :-)

[G+_Dan Clark]

Marc Kline I see what you're saying.  I agree that you can't always be plugged in (your driving example is perfect, and there are plenty more).  I just think there might be a happy medium somewhere :-)

[G+_Marc Kline]

Dennis D. McDonald  Maybe the gamble that these tech giants are taking is on intensive investment on whatever it takes to help us to conflate the concept of "internet" with their brands. And they want to be embedded in as many decisions we don't think of as internet-based as possible. Look at Google Now, which I just got on my iPhone, for instance. 

 

As someone (I forget who) said about Amazon on TWiT last night, they're putting growth and positioning at the forefront now in anticipation of incredible profit later. Investors are happy to ride along. And while we know that data is purposeless without meaningful interpretation, without it, there's no opportunity to actively engage us. With enormous amounts of data, they can only passively receive and process our requests when we take the initiative. There is too tangible a ceiling in that model, no matter how many computers, tablets, and smartphones get into the hands of people.

 

Maybe the normal rules and roles about expense and profitability don't apply to companies whose shareholders thrive on the anticipation of massive success in the future over modest success in the present. Look at how Apple's stock has flattened lately on a lack of exciting news.

[G+_Marc Kline]

Dennis D. McDonald  Maybe the gamble that these tech giants are taking is on intensive investment on whatever it takes to help us to conflate the concept of "internet" with their brands. And they want to be embedded in as many decisions we don't think of as internet-based as possible. Look at Google Now, which I just got on my iPhone, for instance. 

 

As someone (I forget who) said about Amazon on TWiT last night, they're putting growth and positioning at the forefront now in anticipation of incredible profit later. Investors are happy to ride along. And while we know that data is purposeless without meaningful interpretation, without it, there's no opportunity to actively engage us. With enormous amounts of data, they can only passively receive and process our requests when we take the initiative. There is too tangible a ceiling in that model, no matter how many computers, tablets, and smartphones get into the hands of people.

 

Maybe the normal rules and roles about expense and profitability don't apply to companies whose shareholders thrive on the anticipation of massive success in the future over modest success in the present. Look at how Apple's stock has flattened lately on a lack of exciting news.