The "Problem" of Google Glass

[spuwho]

As more people embrace, wear and live with Google Glass, the more problems seem to be cropping up.

What drives such revulsion with Google Glass?

Recently a citation was issued to a driver in San Diego driving while wearing Google Glass.  Now establishments are beginning to ban them, even though they openly ask you to place photos from inside on Instagram. (Which Google Glass can do)

Here is the latest from Seattle:
Per PC Magazine:

Seattle Restaurant Boots Google Glass-Wearing Patron



Well, it happened.
By "it," we mean, "someone wore Google Glass into a restaurant," which is itself not all that newsworthy of a tidbit to share, save for the fact that the restaurant ended up ejecting the patron for said headgear.
Of course, it's another Seattle-based establishment doing the booting. That's not a criticism of the city, we should clarify – it's an interesting note because said restaurant, Seattle's Lost Lake, is owned by the same person who previously issued the Google Glass ban in his bar, "5 Point." That was the first such "No Glass here" policy that we came across shortly after the device's unveiling.
"We recently had to ask a rude customer to leave because of their insistence on wearing and operating Google Glasses inside the restaurant. So for the record, here's Our Official Policy on Google Glass," reads a post on the Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge's Facebook page.
"We kindly ask our customers to refrain from wearing and operating Google Glasses inside Lost Lake. We also ask that you not videotape anyone using any other sort of technology. If you do wear your Google Glasses inside, or film or photograph people without their permission, you will be asked to stop, or leave. And if we ask you to leave, for God's sake, don't start yelling about your 'rights'. Just shut up and get out before you make things worse."
And there you have it; no Glass clearly means "no Glass."
Thanks to the power of Facebook, we also have a glimpse at the point of view of said customer that got ejected. It picks up shortly after an employee tells Nick Starr and his partner that Google Glass isn't allowed at the restaurant:
"I inform her that I am well aware of the policy at The 5 Point Cafe but asked to see where it was policy for Glass to be disallowed at Lost Lake. She said she couldn't provide any and when asked to speak with management she stated she was the night manager. I again inform her that the two venues are different and have different policies. She refuses and I leave," Starr writes.
"As we are leaving Brian points out that on the menu (http://lostlakecafe.com/menu/) they state "Post photos on our website via Instagram by using #LostLake." So how is an establishment which is REQUESTING photos be taken, not allow me to bring a device which takes photos and can post to Instagram," he adds."
Of course, there's a little controversy over whether said establishment has the right to boot Glass-wearing individuals on said Facebook page. Spoiler: They do. Here's a relevant, simple explanation straight from Findlaw, which attempts to explain whether a business can boot a person for sitting around and not buying anything:
"public accommodation laws in most states, including California, prevent businesses from using a person's race, sex, or even height and weight to turn them away for assuming they will not pay."
While lollygagging is a bit different than Glass-wearing, the principle is the same: So long as the boot isn't the result of the patron belonging to some kind of protected class, then it's likely permissible (as in, legal).
One could argue, however, that wearing Google Glass carries with it no greater threat than, say, holding one's phone up in the air and pretending to surf the Web when one's actually taking a clandestine photograph of another patron. Same principle. Perhaps a smartphone is just a bit easier to notice?

[I-10east]

How bout the problems with Google in general? Especially that crappy Google Plus. 

[civil42806]

do you imply that no one wants any privacy.   Google glasses are crap, you have a right to not be filmed or streamed without your consent

[peestandingup]

You know, I consider myself a tech geek, but there is such a thing as common damn courtesy. Something I feel is going away. Especially with the younger gens who haven't known any other life than to grow up with these always on, always plugged into the system devices & services. Like, people holding up their phones during concerts, tweeting & Instagramming their meals ("OMG, guys. I'm totally eating food right now!"), etc. Basically living their lives through a filter & alternate reality. It's stupid & pointless really if you think about it. Plus, likely makes us more anti social while we straddle these two worlds.

Although I can see its usefulness in some circumstances, Glass (and devices like these), will bring about this pointless narcissistic drivel even more to the forefront, and hopefully be shunned in the process, at least in areas where it's uncalled for. But something tells me it will ultimately be accepted as the younger tech conscious crowds get older. The ones that have never really known real privacy, or what its like to not Tweet what you had for breakfast.

[JayBird]

You know, I consider myself a tech geek, but there is such a thing as common damn courtesy. Something I feel is going away. Especially with the younger gens who haven't known any other life than to grow up with these always on, always plugged into the system devices & services. Like, people holding up their phones during concerts, tweeting & Instagramming their meals ("OMG, guys. I'm totally eating food right now!"), etc. Basically living their lives through a filter & alternate reality. It's stupid & pointless really if you think about it. Plus, likely makes us more anti social while we straddle these two worlds.

Although I can see its usefulness in some circumstances, Glass (and devices like these), will bring about this pointless narcissistic drivel even more to the forefront, and hopefully be shunned in the process, at least in areas where it's uncalled for. But something tells me it will ultimately be accepted as the younger tech conscious crowds get older. The ones that have never really known real privacy, or what its like to not Tweet what you had for breakfast.

+100

[sheclown]

You can't do anything about it.  Make a lot of noise I suppose, enact legislation that can't be enforced.

Technology always wins in the end.

[IrvAdams]

Not so long ago people were offended when customers brought their portable 'car phones' into an establishment and had the lack of courtesy to use them. Totally concur, technology will eventually win.

[simms3]

Well, in the land of Google Glass wearers and rich people, I still rarely see them.  They cost thousands of dollars and are merely a personal "statement" at this point.  When I see people wearing Glass, I know they are mostly trying to tell the outside world that they are part of the tech elite.  It's still more of a fashion statement at this point and 99.9% of people find it extremely obnoxious.  There's a major "job class" war going on on the west coast, especially San Francisco.

Since tech has seen a rebirth and moved from the valley to the city, rents and housing prices now top Manhattan and cost of living has gotten out of hand.  If this trend continues, there is no telling what could happen (some type of revolt?).  Anyway, wearing Glass is like saying "I'm 25, have barely worked a couple years in my life, my company pays me in equity, and now I'm a millionaire for simply being in the right industry in the right place at the right time."  For this reason, you'll barely see anyone wearing these glasses anywhere, anytime.  Everyone knows it's the worst way to make friends

[peestandingup]

Yes, and apparently you can't see beyond a couple years into the future. Remember when iPhones used to cost $600, on contract?? I sure do because I worked for the company who sold them. It too was considered an "elitist toy" & the only people that had them were us (they gave full timers free ones, for promotion mostly) & rich people. Now look where we are a short 6 years later (which seems like forever ago).

Whether or not Glass will take off though & be the next big thing is anyone's guess. If it does, watch prices drop like crazy. And also watch how it ushers in the mass acceptance of privacy invading surveillance like never before (both from individuals watching, and governments). Seeing its from Google, they'll welcome this with open arms & also be able to take a loss on the price right off the bat to get them into as many hands, er heads, as possible.

[movedsouth]

I call it "big data living". It has its intrinsically cool parts as well as some really scary aspects. But what it means is that a device like Google Glass will be useful once you have the right augmented reality apps supporting it. Think about it this way: all the data collected by numerous sensors in your surrounding will be instantly and intuitively available as you walk or drive. I think many of the applications that will make wearable computing and augmented reality a hit are yet to be invented. Point at a lightbulb to turn it on. Join local social networks as you enter an area and interact with people close by. These are the kind of things that will make ubiquitous wearable computing interesting and maybe even useful.

I had smartphones for probably a decade before the iPhone came out. Remember the old palm-phones, early windows phones (Windows CE) and so on? It took the iPhone to really make the concept work and some killer apps that actually work. Many of these apps/ideas existed before but never got implemented well enough, in part due to insufficient hardware but also user interfaces that didn't work.

Now the scary part if the privacy aspect of this. I think the solution to this is distributed storage. You need to "own and control" your data. That part is right now missing leading to imperfect cloud approaches. In part, because the hardware and software doesn't exist yet, but also in part due to the business models of companies like Google not allowing for it. Google had a revenue of about 30 billion in 2012. I think Google claims about 1 Billion users, so it makes about $30/year/user. If there is a model where people would pay $30/year for a subscription service, Google' wouldn't have to own the data.

[I-10east]

do you imply that no one wants any privacy.

No. Privacy is okay, but the other drastic changes on youtube are not. Man, I can just go on and on as to why G+ is crap.

1- I have a channel on youtube, and time to time people reply to my videos; Ever since G+ came aboard youtube, I can't even reply to the comments that people posted on MY own videos!!!...and I have (was forced) a G+ account!!!

2- The facebook style layout on youtube is dumb; Instead of having the normal posts in the preferred chronological order like prior, it's now a complete clusterf**k; Recent posts are often buried underneath a six month old post.

3- Spam still exist, so the whole 'G+ removes spam' theory that some believe is offbase.

4- G+ 'circles' limit the spread of infomation.

5- Most youtubers don't care about hashtags, intricate mobile phone tech etc. 

6- Because of the G+ 'circles', youtube is now designed for 'youtube stars' and not the low key youtuber that happens to have a perfectly legit email address.

I probably could list others reasons too, but you get the gist as to why me and hoards & hoards of other youtubers really hate G+. Type in 'google plus' on youtube if you don't believe me.

[sheclown]

I call it "big data living". It has its intrinsically cool parts as well as some really scary aspects. But what it means is that a device like Google Glass will be useful once you have the right augmented reality apps supporting it. Think about it this way: all the data collected by numerous sensors in your surrounding will be instantly and intuitively available as you walk or drive. I think many of the applications that will make wearable computing and augmented reality a hit are yet to be invented. Point at a lightbulb to turn it on. Join local social networks as you enter an area and interact with people close by. These are the kind of things that will make ubiquitous wearable computing interesting and maybe even useful.

I had smartphones for probably a decade before the iPhone came out. Remember the old palm-phones, early windows phones (Windows CE) and so on? It took the iPhone to really make the concept work and some killer apps that actually work. Many of these apps/ideas existed before but never got implemented well enough, in part due to insufficient hardware but also user interfaces that didn't work.

Now the scary part if the privacy aspect of this. I think the solution to this is distributed storage. You need to "own and control" your data. That part is right now missing leading to imperfect cloud approaches. In part, because the hardware and software doesn't exist yet, but also in part due to the business models of companies like Google not allowing for it. Google had a revenue of about 30 billion in 2012. I think Google claims about 1 Billion users, so it makes about $30/year/user. If there is a model where people would pay $30/year for a subscription service, Google' wouldn't have to own the data.

thanks!  I ...almost... understand