But Google Glass did not liberate people. It didn’t make them freer. It didn’t help them become individuals. Why did people roll their eyes at (or even punch) people wearing Google Glass? Not just because it looked ridiculous. Because it promised to be just another way to rob people of their individuality. It threatened them with yet another demand for mind-numbing conformity. Better not speak out! Better not express yourself! Maybe the Glasshole’s recording you!
Patching into another three hours of meetings in your self-driving car on your augmented reality headset so you can spend even more time getting yelled at by your boss? That’s not freedom. That’s repression. Self-chosen. Which, of course, is the most pernicious kind.
I like to think Glass was the first real sign of the general public truly being uncomfortable with the invasive nature of Google and information hoarding technology. That we do, like you say, want technology to progress culture and free us more from our conformist and largely capitalist reality; where we were before comfortable with what Google has done before because of the world of knowledge provided by that at a cost of some privacy and data going to a corporation, Glass was primarily a step into our lives and data without much providing the extra knowledge or freedom, or an advancement in technology or culture. Do you (Hubski) technology-- as a whole, but in this case, the internet, smartphones, global inter-connectivity, "big data"-- make us happier or unhappier, and would we be better or worse off without it? Does modern tech promote freedom or limit it though, or is it a neutral? I believe I do things less that I want to because of the technology I waste time on, but at the same time, I know far more about the world and have my opinions shaped so deeply and on so many topics that I would not have if it were not for these very same things. Not to mention on a less important level, my whole career built around them. Would the world be better if the internet did not exist?Let me put it this way. The average American has a veritable gadget cornucopia at his fingertips. But he’s poorer, more unhappy, more anxious, and less mobile than he was 30 short years ago. In short, technology hasn’t liberated people. It might just be thwarting them, in significant ways, from the lives they should be living.
Very interesting way of looking at it. I think this goes to the core of why you hate the Apple watch so much: it does exactly the same thing (wrong).Because it promised to be just another way to rob people of their individuality. It threatened them with yet another demand for mind-numbing conformity.
Well hang on - I never said I hated the Apple watch, I said I didn't support the hype. As you may recall, I badged your comment in there, too. That was four months ago, by the way, and I think I've seen three smartwatches in that amount of time. Granted, some of them don't call attention to themselves, but I look at watches more than a lot of people. I actually kinda like the idea, but I think I like my fancy-schmancy hand-made digitals more. That's because I'm a watch nerd, not a nerd nerd. But that isn't really relevant to the discussion here, I don't think: watches aren't particularly nerdy (they're kind of nerdy by default and hella nerdy in some iterations) and any smart watch isn't going to revolutionize the way we regard watches. Google Glass, on the other hand, required hanging a HUD off your face. There needs to be a pretty big upside to that because wearable tech has never been cool. I'll hazard the guess that ten years from now HUDs on motorcycle helmets will be commonplace. You might even see them regularly in ski goggles. But walkin'around HUDs? I agree with the article - they're limiting, not freeing.
I know, I was referring to that thread. But you're right, it wouldn't be fair at all to call you an Apple watch hater. I didn't recall your argument there as well as I thought now that I've reread it. The reason I brought it up was because I remembered the part where you talk about how the iWatch is just another device for conformity: My point was that there might be a parallel with Glass: it tries to be both a cool piece of (face-)jewelery and a utility, but isn't convincing at either of those qualities. It wouldn't surprise me if the iWatch fails for the same reasons Glass did....an iWatch or a Moto360 is a mass-produced device with some customization tweaks. It's just another part of the uniform. [...] it does yank any smartwatch out of the realm of "jewelry" and into the realm of "utility" and I'm not sure the utility is there.
Hmmm. The iWatch as an iteration on the watch, Glass as an iteration on glasses. Glasses, of course, having never been cool no matter how hard they try. I'll buy that. An important distinction: an iWatch mostly tells time. It also happens to do other nifty shit. Glass, on the other hand, mostly sits as an interface layer between you and the world. Glasses are corrective lenses, while Glass is an "augmentive" lens... so there may be limits to the parallels but your point is taken. (also, nobody is going to freak out that you're secretly recording them or augmenting them down to their underwear with an iWatch)