Big difference IMO is that the Glass is worn, and even more, is worn on the face, specifically around the eyes.
Remember how douchey the bluetooth headset people were? Very small by comparison, and that was mostly hidden if you had long hair, or were viewed directly from the front.
The Pebble is about the limit, which is why the wrist-computer thing is so interesting, even though it doesn't provide a huge amount of new capability for "heads up" computing vs. a vibrating smartphone. I'm mostly unwilling to wear the "old" Pebble, but probably will wear Pebble Metal, and will definitely wear Pebble 3.0 (if it improves by roughly the same amount; 1-4mm slimmer would be nice).
Glass would be fine alone, or in a car, or in the field, but probably not something I'd wear at dinner, or in a casual meeting (unless by using it I were much more productive and useful).
The article seems to think wearing headphones in public is ok. It's fine when you're sitting down avoiding people, but the kids wearing large, crappy headphones in other environments (e.g. at meals) are kind of pathetic.
Remember how douchey the bluetooth headset people were?...but the kids wearing large, crappy headphones in other environments (e.g. at meals) are kind of pathetic.
Isn't this really judgmental? Doesn't this say more about you than about them?
I'm completely serious. I do not judge people on the tools they use in their life that is of no consequence to me. The same holds for Google Glass -- it is somewhat perverse, if not an attempt at group bullying, however so many try to get some sort of group disdain going about it.
The single credible complaint anyone has about Glass -- after you dig through all of the noisy subjective blather -- is the privacy angle. It may be defeatest but I think that ship has sailed, and we're absolutely surrounded by things recording us (someone mentioned lapel mics, for instance, but of course every smartphone around you might be audio recording. Video recording is often more ubiquitous, but the "pretend you're using your phone" tactic is hardly uncommon)
The whole point of fashion is to shape how people judge you. If most people weren't affected by it, it wouldn't exist. So if it says something about him, it's only that he's human.
Outside of the notion that you can be judgmental about a person ("douche", "pathetic") based upon the tools they use -- conflating wearing a fedora with using a piece of technology -- fashion largely concerns itself with the inconsequential, and in almost all industries and applications follows a far second behind function.
Now someone might point to some freakish catwalk outfit and some bizarro shoes, but those have negligible relevance to the normal world. We're talking about average people in the average world.
I drive a large vehicle because I have a large family and live in a rural area. I picked this model because it looks nice, having fulfilled all of the necessary functions. Some other people live in the city and drive tiny but stylish vehicles, their necessity for function far different.
I have a really fast smartphone that has great apps and great integration. I chose the one that is gold and has a nice logo.
I have an amazing burr coffee grinder that makes perfect grinds and keeps some in an airtight container. It also happens to look really nice on my counter top.
Fashion follows. It does not lead. It will always be contorted around the former.
And people wore headphones because they liked having mobile music without disturbing others. People wore bluetooth headsets because they had jobs and roles that demanded significant voice traffic (as an aside, they declined because voice traffic declined, not because a bunch of people so insecure that they need to bring other people down called them names). And people will wear wearables and smartwatches and so on because it provides value in their life. And fashion will follow, and there will come a time when people will try to make it the bees knees of trendiness.
What's your point? It's irrelevant if thinking someone with a bluetooth headset is douchey is judgmental, the point is if enough people think that's the case, particularly young people, then it's doomed.
The discussion about Google Glass and wearables that we hear has zero input from young people. It's the middle aged white guy telling the world what he thinks from his blog.
> Isn't this really judgmental? Doesn't this say more about you than about them?
Not really. Bluedouches are so self-involved that they don't realize and/or care how annoying it is for them to walk around in public (apparently) loudly talking to themselves. Normally, we only excuse this behavior in schizophrenics.
Not as annoying as the self involved people who go around talking into a plastic brick in public. Normally we only excuse schizophrenics of talking to inanimate objects.
I have a bluetooth headset for making phone calls more safely with my older car (not capable of interfacing directly with my phone), and I don't agree with demonizing headset users, but the biggest issue that I personally found was related to the fact that the headsets were hard to see. Making it unclear when someone was talking on a call or to those around them. The headphones with mics, I find them to be less of an issue because they are more visible even though it would seem to present the same opportunities for confusion.
There was a time when vision correcting glasses were considered very strange I would imagine, but they proved to be very useful and we become accustomed to seeing them. What will be fun, I think, is as others have postulated wearable tech becoming less apparent to the naked eye, so much so that the plastic brick will be considered odd, and that one would WEAR vision correcting lenses mounted in metal or plastic frames right on the face?!
Is it also really annoying for you to see people walking around in public and talking (apparently) to themselves, but while they are with one of their friends who is doing the same thing?
I really don't see the difference between me talking to a friend in public when they are next to me, at the end of a phone call mediated by a handset, or a phone call mediated by a bluetooth headset. The volume of my speech is the same in all three cases, so I have to assume some people are upset that they cannot listen to both sides of my conversation, and become annoyed with the phone/headset scenarios when they are unable to eavesdrop?
First, I find that most people (including myself) talk louder on the phone or headset than to an adjacent person. I attribute it to a combination of lousy acoustics and a lack of visual cues. If you talk at the same volume, maybe you just have a better phone or headset than most people.
Second, I don't think it's a matter of eavesdropping; rather, it seems harder to ignore a half-conversation than a full one, because the latter is normal and expected. Maybe we will eventually become habituated, and in another 10 years we will all be walking around talking to our glasses, watches, or whatever, automatically ignoring each other.
Remember how douchey the bluetooth headset people were? Very small by comparison, and that was mostly hidden if you had long hair, or were viewed directly from the front.
The Pebble is about the limit, which is why the wrist-computer thing is so interesting, even though it doesn't provide a huge amount of new capability for "heads up" computing vs. a vibrating smartphone. I'm mostly unwilling to wear the "old" Pebble, but probably will wear Pebble Metal, and will definitely wear Pebble 3.0 (if it improves by roughly the same amount; 1-4mm slimmer would be nice).
Glass would be fine alone, or in a car, or in the field, but probably not something I'd wear at dinner, or in a casual meeting (unless by using it I were much more productive and useful).
The article seems to think wearing headphones in public is ok. It's fine when you're sitting down avoiding people, but the kids wearing large, crappy headphones in other environments (e.g. at meals) are kind of pathetic.