Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the works-for-me dept.

Google 533

New submitter some old guy writes "Marcus Wohlsen writing in Wired Business makes a good case for why no amount of marketing hype will cure Google Glass of its inherent dorkiness. 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky. Think of the Bluetooth headset: it’s a really sensible way to use your phone without having to take it out of your pocket—so sensible that there’s really no reason not to keep that headset in your ear most of the time. But you don’t, do you?' He also makes an interesting comparison to the Segway debacle: 'If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure. But that transformation hasn't happened. And it won’t. Why? Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620137)

Yes

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620161)

Thread closed.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620345)

I will punch anyone wearing Google Glass. You are stealing privacy from all of us. Get ready to be punched and your Google Glasses destroyed.

I hope this becomes a trend, just like what happened to that guy who weared AR glasses in France. Break them and punch in the face.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (2, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620481)

Thread closed.

And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.

Someone explain to me why you can't do the same technology on mirrored glasses in a way that nobody will notice the camera? If I look on Google for "camera sunglasses" most of the results are dorky, but some begin to look quite cool [fastcompany.com] (second photo; warning there may be some flash media my browser ignored).

There also seem to be a bunch of ideas for holographic contact lenses. Google glass is more of a technology demonstrator and beginning of something bigger. I don't see why it can't take off long term if they can do something useful with it.

Now if only someone could come up with a version where we could control the privacy a bit.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620179)

The definition of the word nerd has a wide range, especially if you ask a nerd about it. Typically they will state something along the lines of:
An individual persecuted for his superior skills or intellect, most often by people who fear and envy him.

Alas, reality has taught me otherwise.

Nerds are socially inadequate people, very insecure and weak, who cling to their supposed intellect and knowledge to compensate. Also known as schoolyard prey.

They're fairly smart in general, so they know this to be true.

I've met many nerds in my life, from school, college, work to the internet, and while I can share some points of view, and general interest in knowledge; the fact they're so socially inept always ends up pissing me off. As skilled as they might be in some areas, there's something plain wrong with their personalities: the fact they try too hard to be liked.

A typical nerd, hardly ever stands up for himself, rather whines and recurs to pity. More likely recoils and becomes part of whatever fandom to find more people like him, takes pride in his little group of like-minded people, and their ground-breaking superior taste, away from the terrible masses of bullies and jocks. But their most intense wish is becoming part of "the cool kids", getting laid with the pretty bimbos, and all that stupid crap. This produces a lot of anxiety and cognitive dissonance on them, ironically making them an unpleasant company.

Notice at this point, I'm referring to males, female nerds are a tad different.

Even when they usually grow up and change their appearance, try to be more outgoing and get the cool guy facade; the odds are, deep inside they're the same insecure, ball-less, obnoxious try-hards, asking for a good smack.

They tend to become manipulative and deceiving to reach out for others, and leech on the ones they perceive better than them. They'll fake they know about some subject, just to keep your attention. Or pretend they're someone's friend, to be acquainted with others. Feign certain trait, to be accepted. They'll deceive themselves as, ultimately, the winners. While leaving you with the bad taste, of interacting with a shallow personality that read a ton of books, and can quote Star Wars (or any other crap no one gives a fuck about) from memory.

The internet provides a great platform for them. All the social networks, where people can show the good side of their lives, and pretend they're better than they are. Not having to show face or voice tone to communicate with others. Thousands of forums where they can "pwn" people, with their great knowledge to impress others...

There was a certain fad some years ago glorifying nerds. And even today it has become a badge of honor, for some. The next is a short list of pseudo-arguments I've heard:

"You might be working in the future, for the nerd you bullied in school!"
Most nerds I know have average jobs.

"Bill Gates is a nerd!"
So? Being somewhat smart doesn't make you a genius, doesn't guarantee financial success either.

"Girls love nerds"
Yeah, no. We (non-nerd females) like smart men, not spine-less losers. The type of women seeking for wimps, are either nerds or control freak cunts...

So yeah... keep on dreaming, buddy. Keep on dreaming.

Re: Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620261)

Well said

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620227)

Ok, so, what exactly is something nerds were using 20 years ago that "mainstream" people aren't using all the time now?

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (4, Informative)

dzfoo (772245) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620351)

Pocket protectors. 20-sided dice. Fanny packs. Floppy diskettes.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620447)

All of which were rendered unnecessary because everyone adopted a 10-year-old nerdly thing: the smartphone. Scrawling notes: on the phone. Game playing: on the phone. File storage/transmission: on the phone. So yes, sometimes old nerd things don't become popular --- when there's a newer nerd thing to replace them.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620383)

Pocket protectors.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (3, Funny)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620409)

Personal computers running Linux? :-)

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620237)

I don't know, judge for yourself. [tumblr.com]

"In its favour, if Google Glass didn’t exist, all these Silicon Valley guys would be having affairs or buying unsuitable motorbikes”

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620407)

It's Chuck Norris??? ;)

If Chuck wear ones, everybody should!!

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (5, Insightful)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620359)

When I see 50 somethings wearing bluetooth earpieces I'm inclined to think that in ten years they'll be wearing these goofy glasses too.

Re:Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? (1)

Loughla (2531696) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620507)

Holy shit that's it. I knew there was something off-putting here. It's going to be the blue-tooth 'try-hard to look young' of the next ten years. Someone mod this genius up.

Yes. (5, Funny)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620139)

Betteridge's law of headlines is way off on this one.

Doesn't account for other issues either. (-1, Redundant)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620143)

What is the ~40% of the public that wears glasses already supposed to do? Take off their corrective lenses in favor of this thing?

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620225)

I thought saw a pic of Robert Scoble wearing it over his glasses. It didn't look like it fit well though. Also ... most could wear contacts, but that really doesn't help when you really need to wear sunglasses as well.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (5, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620243)

How did this get modded up? It's been made in in each of the billion previous glass threads that they have versions that can be fitted with prescription lenses.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620421)

Actually we should ask the reverse question: why would people who never wear glasses buy those things? Everyone would have glasses, even those who don't need prescription lenses? I don't think so.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (4, Insightful)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620247)

Who needs to see the real world when you can see what Google wants you to see?

Google overestimates mainstream stupidity, IMO. (1)

intellitech (1912116) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620289)

Mainstream is also becoming more acquainted with the absolute lack of privacy you are granted when using Google products.

And, more importantly, they're beginning to understand what that lack of privacy means.

An omnipotent device made by a company that makes $$$ analyzing your personal information? No thanks.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620307)

They're planning a version that clips onto your prescription glasses.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620391)

No way!!! Who came up with that? Pure genius.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620337)

What is the ~40% of the public that wears glasses already supposed to do? Take off their corrective lenses in favor of this thing?

Google glass will be issuing/combining it prescription lenses for those who don't want to wear contacts. Quite how I'm not sure and it probably won't be immediate.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620419)

They've said that they've been working with glass companies to come out with prescription lenses.

Re:Doesn't account for other issues either. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620489)

Contacts.

For those who can't wear contacts, wait - eventually, if it's a success, google or a competitor will offer one that allows the easy addition of appropriate lenses.

Today is not next week... (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620145)

Marcus Wohlsen writing in Wired Business makes a good case for why no amount of marketing hype will cure Google Glass of its inherent dorkiness.

And walking around glued to your Smart Phone doesn't? Remember when hands-free Blue Tooth ear thingies came out? Tell me that's not dorky, walking around talking to yourself...

Yes, today it is. But being tied to your mobile device (even *having* a mobile device) use to be very nerdy. In time it will be "nerdy" *not* to have a some type of Intertube connected HUD on your eyeball. Eventually there will be implants and the data will be âoeprojectedâ directly into your brain.

Besides, we all know that "nerds" actually set the tech style trends. There will be a critical mass point, and weâ(TM)ll start seeing these things for sale at the Big Box stores.

Re:Today is not next week... (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620181)

If we are going to use mobile phones as a counter example, then Google should start marketing the glasses to teenage girls. That is what pulled cell phones out of the 'niche, geek, and executive' market and into the mainstream.

Re:Today is not next week... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620297)

And walking around glued to your Smart Phone doesn't? Remember when hands-free Blue Tooth ear thingies came out? Tell me that's not dorky, walking around talking to yourself...

To this day bluetooth earpieces are only worn by brown douche bags in cheap suits.. They're definitely dorky.

Re:Today is not next week... (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620437)

Let's be honest, walking around staring at your phone is nerdy too. So is pulling out your phone at lunch, and yet a lot of otherwise 'cool' people do both those things. Wearing sagging pants is incredibly dorky.

If the things provide actual, real benefit to a lot of people, then soon everyone will be wearing them. If they don't, then they won't catch on. Stylishness is a side-issue in this game. If it's useful, it will become stylish. Like a codpiece.

Too caught up on appearances (4, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620147)

I think society would be a better place if people were less worried about "dorkiness" and more worried about being practical.

Another example is fanny packs. They're incredibly convenient for carrying random crap around, but because society has deemed them "dorky", nobody wants to wear them.

Heck, men can't even carry a small bag around with them because it will be deemed a "purse".

Why are we so caught up, as a society, on such idiotic things? We should just do what is convenient and works and not make fun of each other over it.

Re:Too caught up on appearances (2)

dzfoo (772245) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620209)

You should wear your fanny pack wit pride, and ignore what we say behind your back. Heck, put on camouflage cargo-pants and a pocket protector. We won't mind, really.

Re:Too caught up on appearances (1)

evilRhino (638506) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620211)

Social stigma exists to keep bad behavior in check. Also, there is nothing wrong with messenger bags or satchels. If you are scared to wear Google googles because someone might make fun of you, you probably shouldn't wear them.

Re:Too caught up on appearances (3, Insightful)

RoTNCoRE (744518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620231)

Agreed. Also, I remember the 80's when the select few people who had cell phones/car phones where seen as self important douches. Now everyone is a self important douche with a cellphone!

Just like cellphones, the glasses will become less intrusive.

Re:Too caught up on appearances (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620271)

Backpacks are more acceptable. The set of things that don't fit into my pockets that don't justify a backpack: sunscreen. I can literally think of nothing else.

Re:Too caught up on appearances (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620325)

Then don't go outside. Problem solved!

Next!

Re:Too caught up on appearances (1)

Kkloe (2751395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620277)

First grow some balls and use whatever you want and dont worry about what other think about you, as long as you dont stink or go around acting like a douche people would not care. Second, they at wired are bunch of morons that are trying to blame the utter failure to glass on something as fashion, that is not the problem here, the problem is that people dont want to be recorded when they are aware of it and are constant reminded by such thing as someone wearing those glasses.

Re:Too caught up on appearances (1)

donaggie03 (769758) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620327)

I spent a good number of years as a college student, both undergrad and grad, and carried a backpack with me all the time. I've continued to carry a backpack even after graduation, and no one has ever given me a dirty look, much less said anything to me about it. I probably wouldn't take a backpack into a bar, but I do take one just about everywhere else.

Re:Too caught up on appearances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620463)

But did you start wearing backpacks right when they first came out?

Re:Too caught up on appearances (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620375)

I agree with the premise. I'd like to see people wear surgical masks during flu season when they're using mass transit. Americans are just too "cool" for something that practical however.
Maybe something really nasty will come along and change that.

Re:Too caught up on appearances (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620425)

Heck, men can't even carry a small bag around with them because it will be deemed a "purse".

It is a purse! And why would a man need one? Men don't menustrate, which is the whole reason woman carry purses; they need to carry pads or tampons because they never know when they'll start bleeding, and because they always carry purses, much women's clothing has no pockets. Men's clothing does, which is where men carry random crap around. On the few occasions you might want to carry a bunch of things you just carry a plastic or paper bag, or a sachel, briefcase, or suitcase. I have a sachel for my notebook, but the sachel seldom used, only when I need to carry its power brick or other accessories.

Attention smartphone developers: Men don't carry purses! We have no need of purses. Give me a smartphone the size of the old original Razr! I'm not carrying around a bag just to keep a phone in, and I'm not wearing a damned holster.

Isn't it cool to be a nerd now? (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620151)

Oh wait, no it's not, which anything actually nerdy, like google glass, will instantly demonstrate. Let the irrelevant battle over terminology ("Oh but this is not nerdy, it's DORKY") begin!

possibly, but smartphones caught on (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620153)

In the 1990s you looked pretty dorky pulling a PalmPilot out of your pocket to browse the internet on, but it seems reasonably widely accepted nowadays. I mean, it still looks dorky, but it's mainstream anyway. Is an eyepiece one step too far to make that transition? Maybe, but I wouldn't have predicted the ubiquitous public use of smartphones, either (I would imagine people would have them, but not that they'd be willing to walk down the street typing on them).

Re:possibly, but smartphones caught on (2)

BetterSense (1398915) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620301)

I'm old enough to remember the pre-cellphone days...and I actually remember thinking "nobody is going to carry a phone with them all the time; who needs to talk on the phone that much that they would carry a phone everywhere they go, that would be so self-important that people will be embarrassed, I mean who's going to just whip out their phone wherever they are and start talking to someone, what a dork".

I also thought that nobody would ever use bluetooth headsets, for the same reason.

In 10-15 years, people will probably read these old /. posts and they will sound just as out-of-touch as my prediction that nobody would need to carry a phone with them.

Re:possibly, but smartphones caught on (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620483)

I'm old enough to remember the pre-cellphone days...and I actually remember thinking "nobody is going to carry a phone with them all the time; who needs to talk on the phone that much that they would carry a phone everywhere they go, that would be so self-important that people will be embarrassed, I mean who's going to just whip out their phone wherever they are and start talking to someone, what a dork".

I like how you conveniently cut off that rambling stream of consciousness before you inevitably trailed off to "what a dork, nobody could think themselves to be that self-important, nobody ever could, they don't deserve it, what dorks, nobody could be that vain, nobody could, no person could, no person could, no person could, these people aren't even human, they're not people, they're just self-absorbed dorks, I hate them, I hate them all, who'd ever whip out their phone to do work, that's just wrong, just wrong, just wrong, just wrong, just wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, they all need to die, the world needs to be cleansed of them all, this technology hasn't even been invented yet, and the people who use it are wrong are wrong are wrong they all need to be cleansed are wrong are wrong, I'm going to kill them all."

Problem is.... (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620157)

The problem is, nobody wants to wear glasses, even people who need them for vision correction. That's why contacts were invented, and laser vision correction. So why, oh why, would we ditch glasses, only to wear different glasses.

Re:Problem is.... (1, Interesting)

donaggie03 (769758) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620449)

The problem is, nobody wants to wear glasses, even people who need them for vision correction. That's why contacts were invented, and laser vision correction. So why, oh why, would we ditch glasses, only to wear different glasses.

Because normal glasses imply that your eyes are faulty and people don't like announcing thier flaws in such an obvious way if they could help it. Because normal glasses imply you do a little bit too much book readin', so you obviously need to be picked on. Conversely, Google Glass doesn't try to correct a physical impairment you have, so it isn't really a fair comparison.

Re:Problem is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620515)

Google Glass doesn't try to correct a physical impairment

It would correct my faulty recollection and my minds tendency to lose ability to remember stuff.

Re:Problem is.... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620505)

First, while I hated my glasses growing up I have no problem at all with them now. I suppose if laser correction were cheaper than glasses I'd probably go for it but baring that I actually like my glasses just fine thanks. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

More importantly, why would we ditch glasses just to wear different glasses? Well, why did we (as a species) wear glasses in the first place? Because they gave people something they didn't otherwise have: clear vision. So glasses are annoying but clear vision made it worth the annoyance. Does Google Glass offer something to make the annoyance worthwhile? I don't know... in their present incarnation probably not, at least not for people who wouldn't wear glasses anyway. But I personally think people are seriously, seriously underestimating what can be done with an always on, always visible device with a camera that sees everything you see. In 10 years what a system like Google Glass can do could easily make the annoyance of wearing the device worthwhile and that's assuming the device keeps the current form factor, and there's no reason to assume it wouldn't be smaller and less obvious by then.

The Value of Summaries (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620159)

so sensible that there's really no reason not to keep that headset in your ear most of the time

OK, this article is by a person who does not understand the value of hearing things as they exist in the real world.

Next story.

First Post (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620165)

And I ran into it with my Segway.

Seriously, if everyone (or even a significant fraction of the population) rode one of these, pedestrians would be scattering in terror. Even the local mall, whose security people used to ride these, largely stopped. There were too many near misses (and a few collisions) where the incompatibilities between these modes of transportation conflicted.

Reasons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620173)

"They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'"

And the rational ones too.

Segways? (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620175)

If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure.

If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live but our daily commutes would take two to five times longer. We won't even talk about having Segways all over the icy and heavy snowed streets in the winter.

Re:Segways? (4, Insightful)

admdrew (782761) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620259)

Ugh yeah, I wish people would stop using Segway as an example of useful innovation. The technology behind them is interesting, but as a whole they failed to actually improve transportation in any fashion [thebestpag...iverse.net] .

Re:Segways? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620323)

If you wanted everyone to ride around on something to make their cities more livable you'd have them ride around on bicycles. Optionally, electric bicycles / mopeds. Sure, you'd still have winter to deal with. But even during the nicest parts of the year, not Segways, agreed.

Re:Segways? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620357)

Not sure about the daily commute. Segways can go at 25mph which is much quicker than sitting in the current traffic jams within cities (though getting to the city would be slower if you live further out than the suburbs).

It's practicality that really kills it. You've already mentioned weather, but even on a good day there are issues:
* You also can't carry any luggage that won't fit in a small backpack.
* You can't take your wife/kids in tow, unless they also have segways and your kids are old enough to be able to use them.

Re:Segways? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620403)

Ok 20km/h (I knew I'd seen a 2 quoted)... but even so that's quicker than traffic jams I frequently have to sit through.

Re:Segways? (1)

tacokill (531275) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620373)

No, if we were all riding around on Segways, someone would have crashed by now and skinned a knee. In response, a class action suit will have begun and sued the maker of X part on the Segway (as well as Segway itself) and progress will have stopped.

Don't you know the drill? Anything that is more risky than what we are already doing is to be shunned and sued out of existence. Progress or "leaps forward for mankind" don't matter anymore

Re:Segways? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620427)

Ya, and just try texting while balancing on a Segway. Talk about commuter hell.

Re:Segways? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620459)

If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure.

If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live but our daily commutes would take two to five times longer.

You must live in a city with plentiful parking and no traffic. In other words, a tiny one.

 

We won't even talk about having Segways all over the icy and heavy snowed streets in the winter.

You can't drive on ice either.

Re:Segways? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620523)

You must live in a city which isn't extremely expensive to live in and ringed by suburbs. In other words, a medium-size one.
Even in the worst rush hour, a top speed on 25 mph is a drag. Not to mention if there's hills, or if it rains.

Re: Segways? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620461)

'If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure."

I don't know where you live but replacing the car with a Segway isn't practical in most cases. In highly populated urban areas, people walk or use mass transit. Segways would congest the sidewalks. In rural areas, there is simply too much distance that makes a Segway practical. In the ideal setting would a Segway replace a car and even then I would prefer people use a bicycle instead.

Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'

Segways are not rational. They are for a niche purpose. There are practical reasons for cars. If you are a soccer mom with 2.5 children how do you get them to school and soccer practices? Multiple Segways for the little ones? What about the groceries and errands? Or people who commute over 30mi one way to work?

Dork != bad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620187)

Looking like a whale penis is just fine! I know plenty of zoophiles that are into that.

Re:Dork != bad (1)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620395)

I think you need a new circle of friends.

follow the money (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620189)

Segway never got cheap enough.

Re:follow the money (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620217)

Yeah. Make $500 Segways and they'll be more popular than those razor scooters, which are definitely up there on the dork list.

Re:follow the money (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620349)

Absolutely. Why would anybody pay low-end car money for something that is less useful than a $500 bicycle?

Who says it is a 24/7 device? (2)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620197)

The assumption is people will wear them 24/7 for some reason (or as long as the battery will last)

Why do we assume the proper use case isn't to use them as bluetooth headsets were meant to be: when you needed it (ignore the idiots that wear them to dinner)

In a medical setting, IMO it is a fantastic form factor. For the kid building sand castles, not so much. I see it as more of a device to enhance a particular activity you do that necessitates them, not as a device you sport all the time.

But then again, what is normal about walking down a street staring at your mobile phone composing a text message and not paying attention to your surroundings?

Really. (5, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620203)

Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.

Yes, irrational reasons like ... rain. Or passengers. Or payload. Or personal security. Or range. Or speed.

Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky.

Look, there are armies of douche-Borgs walking around with bluetooth earpieces in, thinking not that they fall enough below some painful threshold of dorkiness while wearing them, but rather that they look cool doing so. These are the spinning hubcaps of phone accessories.

Re:Really. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620411)

Or, you know, they don't give a shit what people like you think? Sure, you can judge all you want, but why do you care?

I where my blu-tooth headset becasue it's convenient , has great sound, the mic is awesome. The people judging what other [people choose to wear are the douchbags.

I find them to be Lobotastic!

Re:Really. (1)

Krazy Kanuck (1612777) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620519)

I want to see this rational fellow drop a toddler and a four year old off at daycare on his morning Segway commute. Sadly I found no hits on youtoob for someone attempting this.

Bluetooth headsets don't cost $1500 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620233)

Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky.

Marcus Wohlsen fails to acknowledge that walking around with something that costs $1500 on your face at all times makes you look sexy.

Not "too nerdy". (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620241)

Not unless your definition of a nerd is anybody who buys bleeding-edge tech for no reason whatever other than the "kewl" factor, which doesn't fit my definition (or Apple fans would be nerds, they aren't IMO). Nerds don't buy tech to be cool, they buy (and build and design and reporpose) tech for useful purposes.

"Too nerdy for the mainstream" usually means too complex for someone of average intelligence, and that wouldn't be an Apple or Google product.

bt headset.. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620253)

..99% of time literally I am not talking on the phone. it would be more of a bother to take it off for putting on headphones or whatever. normally I just wouldn't want the extra weight to wear a google glass 99% of the time.

segways aren't lame though. they're just impractical, costly and incompatible with legislation in most countries where people could afford them...

you know what google glass will be used for though? hacked in tandem to produce porno to be viewed on future oculus devices... which gets us to the real problem of google glass, that it's not quite a content consuming device and not quite a content creation device. realtime view manipulation would be the holy grail but I don't believe for a second that they have yet nailed the AR part of it yet to recognize products well on the fly like the headset in "virtual light" or terminator. in a set environment like a gallery it could work fine for providing information about certain pieces, but not in the wild.

If they looked like a pair of Ray-Bans... (2)

rpbird (304450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620255)

...I could see them taking off. But man, even on gorgeous models they look dorky. Great idea - I'm a fan of the "dataglasses" or augmented reality concept (Virtual Light anyone?) but this, it cries out for a good designer.

Target market (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620257)

The Google Glass target market has two types of people in it. People who saw the Terminator movies and thought, 'that looks really cool' and voyeurs. Sell these things at the right convention and you'll make a fortune.

The first hacks will be gaining root (already done) and when people start putting the Google Glass into glass frames that don't look like they'll get you kicked out of certain entertainment venues. I don't think these have a big future with the public at large since they will freak out most people, which is too bad as I can think of any number of legitimate uses for them.

disqus is hacked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620265)

world wide discus use just went poof ...

Bluetooth headsets (1)

Zorpheus (857617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620269)

Never had a bluetooth headset, but if you just leave it on all the time, wouldn't you get annoyed by having to recharge the battery so often?

Re:Bluetooth headsets (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620355)

I have a blu-tooth stereo head set.
When I get to work, I plug it in, and again when I get home.
I've ran it 6 hours without a charge with no problems, I suspect it would go 12.
Now it's just part of my routine. Well worth it.

Segways are a terrible comparison (4, Insightful)

donaggie03 (769758) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620275)

The segway rant in the summary is ridiculous. Segways never caught on because they fail as a replacement for cars. People still need to get their groceries home and their kids to soccer practice, and they would still revert back to using their car when it rains. That fact alone makes Segways an addition as opposed to a replacement for cars, and Segways are way too expensive to be an additional cost. Secondly, if a large portion of a population started using Segways, there would still be a large portion that also used cars, so we couldn't just rebrand the streets for Segway use. A few Segways on the sidewalk is a novelty. Hundreds at one time would be silly. Whatever the "irrational reasons people love their cars," there are still a great deal of rational reasons why people love their cars, so the "irrational" argument is moo. Of course most of the large trucks and suvs on the streets are unnecessary, but those would be replaced by smaller cars, not moving platforms that people have to stand on for miles at a time. Maybe Google Glass will catch on and maybe it won't but that has nothing to do with the failure of the Segway to actually solve the problem it wanted to solve.

Not just fashion (5, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620285)

>" 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky."

It isn't just dorky, it is rude, creepy, and invasive too. The author and Google (especially the CEO) seems to just completely skirt the entire issue of privacy- not only for the user, but all the hundreds of "victims" around the user, every day. Take out your phone and hold it up in the air, pointed at everyone you pass, meet, talk to, sit next to, and see what kind of reaction you get.

So stop pretending it is just about fashion, it is really insulting.

Re:Not just fashion (0)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620497)

Man people with eyes and ears are rude creepy an invasive. How dare they look at people and remember what they see. Think of the billions of "victims" who lost their job or went to jail after someone saw them do something "bad" in "public".

the iHipster (1, Insightful)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620295)

Apple will just release a version with thick black frames and they'll sell like hotcakes.

Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too exp (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620299)

Segways might work for LA, but what about Seattle? How do you carry a kayak with a segway? How do you transport small furniture with a segway? How do you park with your best gal up on lovers'-leap with a segway? How do you seamlessly transition from one topic to another? With a segue.

Re:Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620329)

All those question apply to segways everywhere, not just Seattle. Add to that it seems to be a false dichotomy to think you can only have a car OR a seqway.

yep (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620313)

just like comic movies, smart phones, computer games and roleplaying games~

Everyone knows the real answer (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620319)

It's Eye-Phone! The eye implant which links up to "the cloud" to record everything in your life.

Actually... walking around with a camera on your head is pretty dumb unless you're shooting porn or some youtube skateboarding video.

I don't even care -- I won't likely be using one of those things. I quickly tired of the bluetooth earset thing, though the little jabra speakerphone thing for my car is pretty nice.

Who knows... perceptions change all the time though. The moment some celebrities start strutting around wearing them is the moment a bunch of people change their minds about how it looks.

Nerdy AND Offensive: A wearable fart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620321)

This product is both nerdy AND invasive. Wearers will become known as "glassholes" for spooking others whilst out and about. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to wear something or do something which they *know* will make people around them uncomfortable.

I liken this device to a wearable fart. It's offensive, and I'm a techie by trade. I love tech stuff, but this is heading down a road from which we will likely never be able to perform a backtrack.

Seriously? Segways are "too rational"? (4, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620335)

On what planet exactly?

They are slow scooters that require the entire world to adjust to them so those with more money than sense could walk less.
They take up more room than a walking human, have zero cargo capacity AND can't do stairs.

But most importantly they represent an overpriced way of doing something most people can do by just walking - moving slowly in a straight line.

Pepper Spray (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620341)

A product doesn't have to be used by 1 billion people to be successfull. Not everyone carries around pepper spray but it is still a big industry. Even if Google Glass is only used by security guards, police officers, dectectives, tabloid jurnalists, and debt collectors is will be a success. It just needs to be usefull to a fraction of the population to make a ton of money.

Segway versus Car (1)

cfalcon (779563) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620367)

I can't think of any time I would rather drive a Segway than a car.

I could think of times I would rather Segway than bike, or walk. Segways are far too slow to replace a car for any meaningful distance.

Old way of thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620371)

I think the name "some old guy" is fitting, as I believe people with your mindset are dying off. In the increasingly technical world, "too rational" is not an issue. Just look around at how many young people have their faces in their cell phones all the time. Besides, the real impact of wearable computing is going to be seen in businesses, where that's even less of an issue. In the information age, data is king and companies with more convenient access to it will win every time.

Also, Seguays are not cars and to suggest that "lameness" is the reason they haven't replaced them is false.

Segway aren't rational for most people... (1)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620377)

... they're best designed for workers or students to operate within a radius of a mile or two which is why you see lots of security people use them at larger companies or campuses.

You can't get groceries in a Segway. You can't pick up the kids after school. If the weather changes unexpectedly you'll have a misserable ride. Segways are expensive and would make attractive targets for theft. You can buy a decent bicycle or even a motorcyle for far less. People change their plans during the course of a typical day and a Segway restricts their flexability in ways a car doesn't.

The people who seem most likely to use a Segway for personal use are people who don't like or have difficulty walking. Ironicly these are the people most likely to be injured by a Segway mishap.

Perfect for driving. Maybe some sports. (1)

millertym (1946872) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620405)

But that's about it. I think this article is spot on. There are tons of "smarter" things we don't do because they are socially awkward.

Glasses are terrible (1)

SirCodeAlot (574117) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620423)

There are reasons people wear contacts and have Lasik. I doubt most people want something that fragile on their heads full time. Its a good first start though

No. (1, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620429)

It's too creepy and douche-baggy. Nerds should have smart minds, not necessarily smart devices anyway.

Flawed examples (1)

phizi0n (1237812) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620439)

I don't expect google glass to ever become popular for everyday use but do think it will have niche markets but the reasons that Marcus thinks it will fail are completely flawed.

I've never seen anyone use bluetooth and then put it away or have it away and then put it on just for a call, from what I've seen people either leave it on all day looking like douches or put it on the entire time while driving. ie. if they have the headset with them then they are wearing it.

He says segways are lame because they are rational which makes absolutely no sense - segways are completely irrational. How are you going to get to work 20 miles away on a segway? You're not. How would you carry groceries home on a segway? You wouldn't. How are you going to transport very young children on a segway? You can't. Segways are toys for the rich and tourists that rent them. They have extremely limited practical usage that is better accomplished with things such as mopeds, bicycles, skateboards, skates, or even good old fashion walking.

nah im pretty sure (1)

nimbius (983462) | about a year and a half ago | (#43620445)

when a product is hyped to death by futurists, plugged incessantly by bloggers, fetishized by cyberpunks and danced around by investors the only purpose in damning it as 'too nerdy' is to make it an even more appealing item for the mainstream 'nerds are sexy' culture.

Just one question : Mods? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43620451)

Can I embed my "google glasses" into sunglasses or something else? (Without tearing appart the whole thing)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?