I'm unwilling to predict the success of Glass, but I'm also unwilling to predict its demise. The jury hasn't even yet convened, much less come close to making a verdict.

For one thing, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the product. If the device is recording, a green light illuminates on the device - there's no missing it. Like jvrossb said also, the device doesn't cover your whole eye - if you're reading something on its screen you're very visibly looking up and to the side.

The "this will fail social norms" card has been played many times, and it has come to pass, but it hasn't been the core of a product failure. We went through growing pains when people friended everyone on Facebook and then realized what a bad idea it was to post pictures from their wild night out where their boss can see it.

We've almost entirely solved that problem now, and Facebook continues to see high engagement and picture sharing.

We also suffered through a few years of people staring into their phones at the dinner table. Social etiquette changed and now it's taboo.

In almost all cases social norms have shifted in response to new technology - our sense of what is appropriate socially is not a stationary target. If Glass can offer something people want, we will work around its social problems. The real trick is if Glass will actually offer something substantial people want.

Likewise I can't imagine anyone seriously using the fragile, expensive Glass instead of something a bit more rugged.

The one hiccup in this would be safety. In the off chance a ball or another player's hand (they're not supposed to grab the shield or helmet, but it happens) crushes the device or worse, drives it into the player's eyes. They would need some sort of built-in thing if that's the case and I'm sure that the NFL will have rules against putting cameras on the back of the helmet so the player can keep an eye there.

In the use cases you mentioned, GoPro is the better choice. The most expensive model costs one third of Google Glass and captures 1440p at 48fps. It takes photos at 12MP and has advanced stabilization features built in. The GoPro is already the go-to sports accessory, I don’t see how Google is going to disrupt this market given its price and lackluster camera specs.

Imagine Glass being used by a golfer. No need for a golf tracker device. You can easily see how far you are from the hole, wind speed, etc.

Imagine Glass being outfitted into the helmet. Watching football will not be the same. Seeing the perspective of the quarterback when he is about to throw the ball makes watching the sport more exciting.

It's sharing what the wearer sees to his circle or to the public.

Of the main menu choices in Glass, 3 are for sharing "Photo, Video and Hangout"

Don't they have "quarterback cams" already? I don't watch sportsball myself.

    The "this will fail social norms" card has been played many times, and it 
    has come to pass, but it hasn't been the core of a product failure.

WebTv: Not socially ok at all to treat your TV like a computer. Still not, really.

Delorean: Weird car with its gull wing doors, too different, can't be seen in that.

The old trick of covering (or disabling) the recording light indicator of a camera to conceal the act of recording could easily be applied to Glass.

And that's the point I'm making - not that Glass is an infallible technology with no social downsides, but rather that its success isn't hinged on it. If it offers something valuable to its users and their friends, society as a whole will work around it - either by evolving the technology or evolving our notion of propriety. More likely, a bit of both.

We worked around security cameras (part of which involved new legislation regarding privacy effects thereof), we worked around Google Street View, and we'll work around this.

As a professional photographer, I have my subjects sign a release before or shortly after I take a picture they’re in. If they refuse to sign, I delete the material.

> I do not allow for people to take my picture or record me without my permission.

I don't see how you have much control over it, at least in public. Maybe you live in a country where preventing others from recording you is a legal privilege.

In most countries, you can’t just take pictures of random people without their permission.[1]

“I've never heard of a workplace where you can't bring your iPhone on the premises”

Banks and other financial institutions, airports, R&D facilities, defense sites, governmental institutions, the list goes on.

Not so long a go, I worked at the headquarters of a bank where I could only bring a dumb phone without camera.

[1] Even pro-personal invasion sites are cautious: http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-peo...

Citation needed, as a fellow photographer. Photographing people in public places, without consent, is entirely legal in almost all developed countries.

Some countries have stricter rules regarding publishing or publicizing these images, but restrictions on photographing people in public spaces without their consent is quit rare in the developed world.

Japan[1] has some of the strictest laws re: photographing random people, and even that is very much liability-based after the fact rather than a ban.

[1] http://tonymcnicol.com/2009/01/26/photography-in-japan-what-...

And I know for sure that banks don't forbid camera phones at least in general, because my father worked at one and all his people had blackberries. This was years ago, and camera phones have only become more ubiquitous.

I gave examples of settings where camera phones might be forbidden. At most regular branches of banks, they’re probably fine. I worked at the headquarters of a bank that also served as distribution center of most of my nation’s cash bills.

With Glass, the ease of surveillance increases tenfold. Not only do you have an absolute perspective of how the end result is going to look because the device is on your face, but you have an open line of sight and artifacts will be reduced to a minimum due to its placement.

My main feeling is that the folks have latched onto a narrative about it that is not necessarily going to be that important in the real world, as we see happen so often with other things on this site.

I'm not saying Google Glass, or something like it, will succeed, or that it won't face social obstacles of the kind the author describes. But I'm not at all convinced those obstacles are insurmountable if it provides value.

I think the product is likely to find successful niches among hardcore nerds, security personnel, the military, maybe even medicine. It's cool and probably useful for all sorts of things. But most of society is going to draw a sharp line and hate this technology for at least a generation. (I'm probably too out of touch to predict what the kids will think.)

Incidentally, a couple days ago I spoke to someone wearing sunglasses. I did not find myself wondering if he was zoning out even though I couldn't see his eyes because there were other indicators that he was engaged. I did not check to see if the iPhone in his pocket was recording, nor did I really focus on his button up shirt to see if there was a tiny camera recording me.

In an essentially pre-Glass world all the technology needed to zone out in social situations while surreptitiously recording audio and video already exists and is accessible, yet I've never really worried about it. I strongly suspect this is a made-up problem. There may be many issues with Glass, but my hunch is this won't be one of them.

You know why? Because the phone was in his pocket, and if a camera was on his shirt, it was very well-hidden.

The fact that Glass lives on someone's face, the thing our brains are hard-wired to focus on, punctures a hole in manufactured normalcy and brings the issue right to the surface. Especially given that the whole point is to use it: all it will take is someone drifting off in conversation while staring into their mini-screen, or blurting out "Oh, that's so funny, I just put it on YouTube", and it'll leave a sour taste with everybody else.

I can't predict whether or not Glass will succeed. I can confidently predict, however, that there will be a strong social backlash.

  "Who else was in that?" she said.
  I unfolded my napkin and got the silverware out. "I don't remember."
  She got out her phone.
  "No, don't go there."
  "I. M. D. B." Her fingers.
  "Oh, Cristian Douglas," I said. "It was Cristian Douglas."
  Still typing, head leaned back, under the spell of her phone.
  "Yeah, Cristian Douglas and Bob Willis."
  She said nothing.
  "Sheila McIntyre."
  "Yep," she said.
  "Dougie Boons."
  And then, after a minute of watching her lit-up knuckle slide around, past the side of her phone, she said, "Mel Gibson."
  I put my hand over the phone. "Stop."
  She looked around my hand.
  "And-- and--"
  I slammed the phone down and her hand-- I slammed them down on the counter.
  "My phone!" she cried.
  "Stop it."
  "You're no fun."
  Me: "You're no fun!"
  Her: "That was really rude."
  Me: "Don't look things up while I'm talking!"
  She was wriggling her phone out from under my hand, but I held it tight. For a second, I was tempted to yank her out from the booth and twist her arm behind her back, but instead I just let go.

  - why the lucky stiff

It's the digital equivalent of taking a newspaper and holding it in front of your face while talking to someone else.

That's been the case since about 1930. Why anyone treats this differently is beyond me.

And a lot cheaper than $1500, too.

It was never a distraction at all but more of an assistive device.

Smartphone for me is way more distracting.

"what is the user looking at on their screen, are they present, or distracted? Are they here and paying attention? Are they publishing this online right now? Or later?" is a made up problem. The other issues brought up may be entirely valid, but this one isn't.

I have very bad news for this author, this is classic projection. The author will be uncomfortable around people who are wearing Google Glass, so they predict failure. They make that prediction because if Glass is successful then it means the author will feel compelled to retreat from society and nobody will be "present" for them.

I won't call it one way or another but I can spot technology rubbing someone the wrong way from a mile away. I get it, the lack of privacy, the need to trust either the people you are with or to be 'on guard' to avoid something that can come back to haunt you.

Perhaps the Google engineers were envisioning a future where there was absolute silence around the office water cooler because nobody wanted to go on record as a gossip.

I don't think that the engineers on Glass don't understand the challenges though.

If enough of those people embrace the technology it will be a 'success' and people who do object may become disconnected like people who shun Facebook for its lack of privacy as well. Fashion is a powerful thing, even stupid fashion.

Similarly people wearing glass around her, whom she trusts, aren't really a threat. So they snap a crazy picture of the pizza cheese that looked like a kitten or a video of an amazing Zelda move, its not a big deal.

My point is that the source of the unease about people filming is a lack of trust in that person and what they are going to do with that data. Amongst friends? Lots of trust. Amongst strangers? Not so much.

So separate the trust issue from the product issue.

Another way to look at this that I just thought about, video camera recorders, aka 'camcorders'. When they came into existence there was a very similar outcry about random people filming random things. But the people who bought them in droves were grandparents so they could take them to their grandchild's house, film their antics and then re-watch them whenever they wanted. They were still creepy if people were randomly filming. So if someone is wearing Glass and it makes you uncomfortable you might ask them to take it off. You're probably not going to ask your in laws who are filming their grandkids, nor are you going to ask the guy who is using it for heads up GPS info while driving a cab, or the store clerk who is doing inventory, or engineer who is sitting in the park reading code. But all of those are solid use cases for it.

I assert that if it fails it won't be because some folks are anxious around others who are wearing Glass.

So, why is Glass scaring so many people? The conspicuous part? The Google factor where a big company is gathering the data? I'd honestly love to know why it causes such a visceral reaction.

Google Glass is a tool that augments existing tools and for a lot of people that will probably be fine - and they'll use it occasionally while on vacation or at a party or what have you. For some it'll be a game changer, and those people will use it all the time; but those people already use their cameras, smartphones etc constantly and Glass will just help them create a better workflow.

Some people will like it, some won't; beyond that I don't see how anyone here can make sweeping declarations about how 'society' - whatever / wherever that means - is going to take it.

Finally, why is assumed that everyone who uses it will be recording surreptitiously on a constant basis??? I don't do that with any of the many recording devices I've owned, and I don't know anyone else who does either.

Just because it'll be easier doesn't mean this garish anti-privacy vision will come to pass. And just a heads up: any time you're in public, you're in public - you're not in private and you're likely recorded, looked at, or noticed by someone, or something in any modern society. Get over it.

I completely agree with this, and am trying to be more mindful and in the present. I don't want Google Glass. That said....

>I am absolutely certain it won't be socially acceptable to >be video or audio recording people around you without their >permission

We've come to accept a LOT in the past few years. Pre-Facebook, people found it very weird to look for people online. A campus directory (it had first and last names, and email addresses) was called 'The Stalker'.

From Surveillance Cameras, to handing over data to corporations, to warrantless wiretapping, we've adapted very quickly to losses of privacy.

The one thing that might make google glass different is that it's very personal, while the other privacy violations are abstract and don't intrude on social interactions.

But all it takes is a few people in a group for recordings to seem 'normal'. Most of us aren't leaders. We look to see what other people find acceptable, and base our opinions on the perception of the group consensus.

To be clear, I don't like the idea of pervasive interpersonal video recording without consent. But I think the idea will gain acceptance more easily than this author admits.

The funny thing about technology is that pioneering and groundbreaking technology -- and I don't think Glass is either (see Steve Mann) -- don't always mean a successful product. Adoption is weird. People hang on to some things and make them popular in the same way people make otherwise arguably "better" things fall by the way side. And that may be for reasons you didn't even remotely envision when you first saw the technology (Betamax).

Opening a car hood and seeing yellow arrows with instructions telling you what to do.

Surgeons seeing information overlaid on top of patients.

GPS just being arrows in front of you.

Being able to see what your room looks like with different paint, and just being able to look around.

Chilling at home watching a giant TV, without having a giant TV.

There are a million uses for how that technology will be awesome. I don't think it's there yet in v1, but it can't be too far off and I'm glad Google's working on it.

The old crufty cyborg "eye tap" style rigs that the Media Lab guys had in 1995 did just that, but it was more like an emacs buffer floating in front of your face. Thad Starmer works on Glass, so it will probably happen someday.

Location based nags you can't turn off demanding that you visit the commercial sponsors of your device as you travel through the city.

Bugs that block your vision randomly and can't be turned off because you carrier is taking two years to approve the bug-fix upgrade to Android 11.3 and your equipment is locked down with an encrypted bootloader.

Crashing into walls because some cracker has added your glass to a botnet mining for bitcoins and the device is lagging and leaving artifacts in your sight lines.