Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't get why everyone is freaking out about trying to predefine the social rules for this thing. Rather, to be more literal, I should say I do get it but don't agree with it.

Wearable computing and ubiquitous photography are going to be things as the cost of hardware falls. This is already true compared even to the world of the late nineties. Google glass is just the first attempt, but there will be others. WSJ opinion pieces are not going to define how people use it.

The actual social drawbacks combined with the benefits will be the determining factor in how people use it. I imagine (from actually watching people's reaction to the device in person) that in real scenarios most people will not care that you are wearing a Glass/iSee/Windows Goggle 8. And likewise, the relative infrequency of surreptitious recording being useful will limit how often the devices will be used that way.



Actually, Steve Mann was doing this fifteen years ago. There are web pages describing his wearables that literally haven't been updated for a decade. Think about that for a second. Bill Clinton was president when this was cutting edge stuff. And the Glass hardware looks just as stupid and dorky as the hardware Mann built himself.


You are nuts if you think Glass looks as dorky as Mann's stuff. Be serious, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wearcompevolution2.jpg


It puzzles me I don't see much mention that Steve Mann was physically assaulted because of his glass hardware and discuss the reasons for it in relation to Google Glass.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/augmented-reality-explorer-...


More like going on 30 years, actually.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: