Its not that the future isn't here, its that our view of what the world is changed, and with that what technology was needed changed. In the 50s and 60s gas was cheap and cars were relatively new in the popular market. Great, right? Cars will always be perfect for everything. Make them bigger, make them have luxury! Flying cars, wouldn't that be great? Then its the 70s. Gas prices go up. Simultaneously, Japan brings the small car to the collective conscious. Flying cars? Shit nobody actually wants that. So images of flying cars by and large drop down to minimal levels, to the point where flying cars are rarely any draw to sci-fi, especially alternate earth visions. And if they exist, they use a mystical fuel we all don't have, but would love. That's one of te examples, but the core concept can be proven many times over. What we see as the future is a reflection of the world we see today. Google Glass might be aa part of that future, or it might not. Right now we see technology as a luxury, as a means of entertainment and socializing primarily. What will it be in 20 years? Will it be a necessity, will it be compulsory? We can't tell. The grim truth is that what lies ahead is never known. Not even mildly. The glasses might flop right out the door. Someone else might jump ahead. You can only see a few feet ahead of you, everybody can. And when we look in to the future to try and guess whats ahead, we are asking two questions. What will it be, and how will the universe have changed as our perception of it changes? Who here ever thought I'd be posting this on a keyboard that can fit in my palm, while moving at 60 miles an hour at a relatively stable connecton rate
It looks promising, although it's a shame that they're advertising something you can't buy. The future isn't here yet because you're not a sufficiently cool or Beautiful Person to deserve it? Not sure if I want to beg for one on Twitter, like they want. But if they can get these to the point where it's impossible to tell if someone's wearing them (say, it was integrated into the frame of prescription or sunglasses with little or no bump), you'll start to see the culture change to accommodate the assumption that everyone is wearing one unless they explicitly signal that they aren't. The pan-opticon effect would be felt everywhere, changing how people behave.
Well you do have a chance to spend $1500 on them if they like the way you beg. :) I agree that this will bring significant changes once they become near ubiquitous. I wonder about the wrap-around head bar. It seems unusually large, and a bit uncool. I suspect it has hardware in there, and may be an antenna too.It looks promising, although it's a shame that they're advertising something you can't buy.
Honestly, this is creepy. Also, how would this work with a person wearing glasses?
That's not creepy. This is creepy. The retinal projector would attach on top or outside, I guess.
That film is really creepy -- but also very cool. A recent novel by Gary Shteyngart does an amazing job of describing the world where everyone seems to have what the guy has in that awesomely creepy film. Check it out.
Honestly, the aesthetic doesn't bother me too much. And it's a hell of a lot better than every lab prototype I've seen that bulges out 2 inches from the head. It's the $1.5k price point that's the deterrent. Under $200, it's a toy. Above $1k, it's an aspirational lifestyle accessory. Then again, I don't bat an eye when I meet a lifelogger. I idealize a world of wearable computing, but to date, most uses of them seem to err more on the side of distracters than optimizers of one's life.
That is the biggest obstacle here by far: Who will be willing to wear it casually, and how will that feel to those about the person wearing them? All of the video was from the wearer's perspective. They never showed someone talking to their Google Glass from a bystander's perspective. I think Apple will have more success with adoption of their watch.