Wearable tech, fashion, and augmented cognition
Published Nov 15, 2022
It is indisputable that the Google Glass failure was a devastating blow to smart glass tech. We have a radioactive wasteland poisoned for 10+ years, and who knows when it will be declared safe. “Even Google failed there, there is probably zero demand until we can take it to the next level!”
But what actually happened? I’ve read dozens of articles with Glass reviews written at the time when it briefly “boomed” and afterwards. And it is a spectacular example of low-quality tech journalism in general. If you read any of those, it is pretty obvious that not a single author tried to use Glass continuously for more than 15 minutes, not to mention trying it as a daily driver for a week. Thus, there are ZERO references to the elephant in the room: Glass did not work. Ever. Nothing worked. Not a single application behaved as expected, even basic ones like voice control, video recording, navigation, image search, and even using it as a headset. Just configuring it to use the phone as a connectivity provider was enormously painful, and I assume it to be a blocker for non-tech persons. Instead, they blamed it for being ugly and suffering from privacy issues. But what do you think?
A) If the Glass worked as expected, people would eventually overcome its ugliness because utility value overweights it
B) If the Glass was pretty, people would love it anyway, and the tech could be fixed later
C) There is really no demand for wearable HUD
I am certainly all for “A”. I think the future potential for augmented cognition and continuously augmented situational awareness is yet to be unleashed. Glass (if it worked) could be a nice way to peek into the future. And if it could deliver just a fraction of the promise, the revolution could start. So you may be a luddite who “does not want to wear an ugly gadget that makes me look like a geek” — or outsmart and outperform that guy in every possible daily activity because you see more and understand more. Normies are not leaders, they are followers, and who would care about them?
If it was all about the looks, Ray Ban Stories would have had a massive success. Did you see it out there even once?
I do not buy the privacy threat bogey, either. It entirely contradicts my personal experience. First, there was a huge widespread misunderstanding: “Glass continuously sends out video stream to Google”. In reality, it lights up a LED whenever it records video, and you cannot do it “continuously” because the battery lasts no more than 20–25 minutes (people say 40, but I was unable to get more than 25). Second.. no one cared; this media hysteria was pumped by.. media. For two months, I desperately struggled to find some use to Glass wearing it the whole time I went out across several European countries; not a SINGLE time was I confronted by someone concerned by privacy. The typical reaction was, “what is it? Google Glass? Wow, that’s cool, man!”. Several not-so-smart-glass models are designed to capture the video stream covertly continuously, and nobody cares either.
Image credits: Antonio Zugaldia — https://www.flickr.com/photos/azugaldia/7457645618, CC BY 2.0