The Google Glass team posted “The Top 10 Google Glass Myths” trying to stem the tide of bad press. They didn’t mention how creepy the company is—perhaps that’s for another “Top 10” list.
Google begins damage control for Google Glass
The Google Glass team posted “The Top 10 Google Glass Myths” trying to stem the tide of bad press. They didn’t mention how creepy the company is—perhaps that’s for another “Top 10” list.
It was nice of you to link this for them. Nobody would find it on G+.
One myth that turned out to be true:
Wearers Google Glass in public will suffer from ridicule
Love how you guys slam Apple, do you have some tag that I can follow more closely?
This is far worse than Antennagate, because, you can’t fix these kinds of myths easily, they are ingrained into culture.
This should be the top 10 lies Google tells about glass. These aren’t myths, these are truths.
” Glass isn’t designed for or even capable of always-on recording (the
battery won’t last longer than 45 minutes before it needs to be
charged).”
hahahaha
I know it lasts more than 45 min when not recording video, but 45 min doing anything that is fully taxing the hardware is pretty pathetic.
I’m definitely no Google fan and I don’t like the lecturing, big daddy tone of that list (and who told them everybody loves a good list?), but I have to admit that some points they make are indeed valid.
I have been to a security trade show recently and saw loads of spy cams, some as small as a shirt button, able to record in HD for hours and some even streaming over WiFi (so you could not even find the recorded data on the person wearing the cam). Most of them were cheaper than Glass, too.
This does not eliminate the valid criticism about Glass, but that whole video capturing thing might indeed be blown out of proportion. While I am not for too much regulation in general, we might rather need a discussion at some point, which devices are acceptable at all, and who should be allowed to buy them. Eventually a technology like iBeacon could be used to automatically turn off such devices in sensitive areas…
Haha, great point. Just realized that I have been on G+ for the first time ever 🙂
There’s an odd effect that people don’t seem to mind, or notice, covert cameras and their associated recording. There are YouTube videos of a guy who walks up to people in public areas and starts recording them; they tend to freak out about it, oblivious to the fact that there are probably 3 or more other cameras also recording them at that moment.
It is the locality and immediacy of the Glass that raises ire since the presence of it telegraphs your ability to record.
And the effects ascribed solely to “Antennagate” actually affected lots of other smartphones.
The difference is that security cameras are there for well…. Security, and evidence should a crime take place. Nobody even looks at those videos much of the time unless they need to.
Just because security cameras are tolerated doesn’t mean we have to tolerate some creep shoving a camera in our face so he can put up a lame video on YouTube.
CCTV for crime prevention is a bogus concept sold by special interests. they havent been shown to reduce crime.
http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/
You’re holding it wrong, BlackBerry and Samsung and Nokia and HTC customers!
You can’t stop the “creep” from doing that.
The only difference is that in the future you won’t notice the camera.
Good times.
Top 10 straw men useful for deflecting people’s attention from the real problems with glassholes.
First: Most of Europe has shown that even ubiquotous CCTV neither reduces nor aids in the prosecution of crime.
Second: What if Starbucks, for example, were to allow full web access to all their cameras. Do you think it would bother the patrons?
What is the arbitrary point you choose between security and creep?