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!

Are We Socially Ready For Wearable Computing?

timothy posted 1 year,5 days | from the google-glass-still-makes-you-a-four-eyes dept.

Hardware 214

An anonymous reader writes "Smart watches have arrived, and Google Glass is on its way. As early-adopters start to gain some experience with these devices, they're learning some interesting lessons about how wearable computing affects our behavior differently from even smartphones and tablets. Vint Cerf says, 'Our social conventions have not kept up with the technology.' Right now, it's considered impolite to talk on your cellphone while checking out at the grocery store, or to ignore a face-to-face conversation in favor of texting somebody. But 20 years ago, those actions weren't even on our social radar. Wearable devices create some obvious social problems, like the aversion to Glass's ever-present camera. But there are subtler ones, as well, for which we'll need to develop another set of social norms. A Pebble smart watch user gave an example: 'People thought I was being rude and checking the time constantly when I was really monitoring incoming messages. It sent the wrong signal.' The article continues, 'Therein lies the wearables conundrum. You can put a phone away and choose not to use it. You can turn to it with permission if you're so inclined. Wearables provide no opportunity for pause, as their interruptions tend to be fairly continuous, and the interaction is more physical (an averted glance or a vibration directly on your arm). It's nearly impossible to train yourself to avoid the reflex-like response of interacting. By comparison, a cell phone is away (in your pocket, on a table) and has to be reached for.'"

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

NO !! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183475)

Next !!

Re:NO !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184237)

Next !!

Betteridge's law of headlines

"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Re:NO !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184297)

Which way to the front?

Re:NO !! (2, Insightful)

phrostie (121428) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184373)

Shamelessly stolen from, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park_(film) [wikiquote.org]

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"

For me, it's all about invisibility... (2)

dlingman (1757250) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183477)

If you can't tell that I'm reading email, or surfing the web while interacting with others, that's a good thing. I don't want things intruding into my presence unless I ask for them though.

Re:For me, it's all about invisibility... (4, Insightful)

mark_reh (2015546) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183527)

So lemme see if I get this: you want to be able to send and receive text messages while interacting with others, but you don't want them to know you're doing it so they won't think you're some sort of a-hole? And you think that the person you're interacting with won't notice you staring at your watch? And you think they won't notice that it's big, clunky, and has text displayed on it, sort like, oh, I don't know, a phone?

Are We Socially Ready For The TRUTH!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183529)

Blacks are inferior as a group.

Look at the way [waff.com] all of the blacks just go apeshit so to speak [myfoxatlanta.com] over a bunch of fucking sneakers of all things [wdrb.com] !

Then ask yourself why white people don't riot over the latest Apple gadget even though they gather in large crowds waiting for them. I mean an objective person might think whites are more civilized!

Oh does anyone remember when the blacks rioted like crazy [scotsman.com] after Hurricane Katrina? Isn't it JUST A LITTLE STRANGE the way white people in Colorado banded together and helped each other [usatoday.com] when they were hit with a natural disaster instead of rioting and looting [usatoday.com] like the blacks did? I mean an objective person might think whites are more civilized! [blogspot.com]

Oh and blacks are responsible for nearly all the murders in Marion County [blogspot.com] ! That is what you would expect from a violent tribal uncivilized race.

Interesting when a black man admits blacks are to blame [vdare.com] for the hellhole that is (86% black) Jackson Mississippi? Quote: "Look at recent history, like in South Africa, when apartheid was abolished,” Lambus said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. “Blacks went on a crime spree.""

It goes on and on. Probably no point in posting this since people who are objective already understand the destruction and violence and cost blacks bring anytime they are abundant. It is not just USA. All over the world black-governed nations are hellholes. But objective people knew this. It is the people indoctrinated to believe that acknowledging FACTS is somehow "racist" who just can't admit it. None are so blind as those who will not see.

Re:For me, it's all about invisibility... (2)

slick7 (1703596) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184681)

If you can't tell that I'm reading email, or surfing the web while interacting with others, that's a good thing. I don't want things intruding into my presence unless I ask for them though.

Big Brother, in your pocket, in your mind, in the pocket of your mind.

Duh! (5, Insightful)

mark_reh (2015546) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183481)

A Pebble smart watch user gave an example: 'People thought I was being rude and checking the time constantly when I was really monitoring incoming messages. It sent the wrong signal.'

I've got news for you. You're not sending a good signal when you check your phone for text messages during a conversation either. In either case you're indirectly but very clearly saying to the person standing in front of you that anything, including the time of day, a text message, or a facebook update is more important/interesting than what you are saying to me right now.

Re:Duh! (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183567)

Ah yes but he was sending the wrong rude message, it was "I'm so bored listening to you it seems time is standing still and I keep checking my watch praying this will soon be over" instead of the "I'm far too busy and important to devote all my attention and energy to interacting with you, so I'll casually show it by doing other things at the same time" rude.

Re:Duh! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183831)

Ah yes but he was sending the wrong rude message, it was "I'm so bored listening to you it seems time is standing still and I keep checking my watch praying this will soon be over" instead of the "I'm far too busy and important to devote all my attention and energy to interacting with you, so I'll casually show it by doing other things at the same time" rude.

Is it rude when you actually do have things going on that really are more important than some small-talk the person in front of you keeps making? Should I prioritize the guy's views of a football team over an e-mail from my wife concerning our family? Should my boss be less important than the guy in front of me and his views of football and gadgets?

I guess Im being rude now by asking a reasonable question.

Re:Duh! (3, Insightful)

gnoshi (314933) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184043)

I guess Im being rude now by asking a reasonable question.

No, you're being rude by wasting people's time by pretending to ask a reasonable question while actually just being a sanctimonious ass.

Re:Duh! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184047)

Is it rude when you actually do have things going on that really are more important than some small-talk the person in front of you keeps making? Should I prioritize the guy's views of a football team over an e-mail from my wife concerning our family? Should my boss be less important than the guy in front of me and his views of football and gadgets?

Yes, yes and yes.

If you don't want to talk with someone, break off the conversation with them. Do not engage in other activities whilst you are talking to them.

Saying the words "Excuse me, please, I need to check this" is apparently an epic, impossible feat that only the greatest of men can accomplish.

Re:Duh! (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184319)

Should I prioritize the guy's views of a football team over an e-mail from my wife concerning our family?

If your wife is sending you urgent e-mails about your family that you need to deal with right now and not in ten minutes, maybe that's the problem? If it's urgent you call. Twice if need be, to let you know voice mail is not quick enough. If your excuse for checking your email every time a message pops in is that it might possibly be urgent, it's a bloody poor one. Not to mention you'll probably spend most of your life checking email, but that's not anyone else's problem.

Re:Duh! (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184697)

Yes. You are being rude by pretending to listen to the person about football. If you're not interested, break it off and go elsewhere. If you can't easily break it off, then checking your messages from your boss is just a cop out.

Re:Duh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45184837)

If you can't figure out how to politely excuse yourself from a conversation for something more important, then you need to get some social coaching. New technology isn't the problem in this example, it's social incompetence.

Re:Duh! (2)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184783)

Ah yes but he was sending the wrong rude message, it was "I'm so bored listening to you it seems time is standing still and I keep checking my watch praying this will soon be over" instead of the "I'm far too busy and important to devote all my attention and energy to interacting with you, so I'll casually show it by doing other things at the same time" rude.

Except, of course, the point of the activity was not to send a message, it was to check if he had received any. The social message of rejection was an uninteded side effect.

And yes, I actually am far too busy and important to devote all my attention and energy to interacting with you. Every single person in the world who isn't you is. And it isn't the least bit of rude of them to not put all other activities aside just because you want to talk to them. It is, however, rather narcissistic to demand they do so.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of narcissistic persons out there. They aren't necessarily malicious, but they are apparently unable to comprehend that others have lives and priorities of their own. Thus, if I glance at the clock, it's not me checking the time, it's me sending you a message that I'm bored. If I do anything at all, I'm not doing it because I want it done, I'm doing it to show you I don't want to talk with you. Everything I do is about you, at least in your twisted mind.

So, that's a critical design feature for a wearable computer: allow me to use the thing without sending any kind of messages to anyone except the intended receiver.

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183769)

In either case you're indirectly but very clearly saying to the person standing in front of you that anything, including the time of day, a text message, or a facebook update is more important/interesting than what you are saying to me right now.

Which may very well be true!

I am a nerd. I may very well have some tech stuff occupying my attention, that is indeed more important than a stranger trying to strike up a conversation. I might not be interested in a casual conversation at that moment. Or in helping a stranger to find the way. The stuff I am doing is not necessarily unimportant! Would you disturb someone busy reading books or performing calculations?

Oh, and it is not facebook I am checking. Facebook is a social thing, as a nerd I don't use the net much for that.

Re:Duh! (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184523)

You're not sending a good signal when you check your phone for text messages during a conversation either.

That depends on the signal he is trying to send. I have found that if I check my phone frequently when someone is talking to me, then that person is likely to bother me less in the future.

Re:Duh! (1)

mevets (322601) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184719)

I am surprised you have a problem with people bothering you at all! I would think that most would strive to avoid you.

The wrong signal? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183487)

'People thought I was being rude and checking the time constantly when I was really monitoring incoming messages. It sent the wrong signal.'

If you are monitoring incoming message while you are with other people you ARE being rude.

Re: The wrong signal? (1)

Tx (96709) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183543)

The people that are sending the messages aren't people? Maybe I find it rude that people think just because they happen to be in my personal space, that they automatically deserve my undivided attention?

Re: The wrong signal? (2)

Zaelath (2588189) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183577)

Then maybe you should explain that to those people and they'll make sure they're not in your personal space. Problem solved!

Re: The wrong signal? (5, Insightful)

mark_reh (2015546) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183581)

Don't worry- the problem will solve itself. Keep checking your phone/smart watch for messages while conversing with others and before long you won't have to put up with people in "your personal space" any more.

Re: The wrong signal? (1)

russotto (537200) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184743)

Don't worry- the problem will solve itself. Keep checking your phone/smart watch for messages while conversing with others and before long you won't have to put up with people in "your personal space" any more.

In the words of that reknowned poet and epigrammist, Grumpycat: GOOD.

Re: The wrong signal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183599)

Then why are they in your personal space? I assume we are not talking about strangers on a train here, but people with whom you have met in person in order to interact with them.

Re: The wrong signal? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183965)

Then why are they in your personal space? I assume we are not talking about strangers on a train here, but people with whom you have met in person in order to interact with them.

If you really are Strangers on a Train, and you're constantly checking your monitoring devices... the other guy is probably going to think you're a cop.

Re: The wrong signal? (1)

Libertarian001 (453712) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183729)

Your continued presence implies that that they do deserve your undivided attention. If you don't wish for this to be the case then you should excuse yourself and leave.

Re: The wrong signal? (2)

blackest_k (761565) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183775)

conversely you are in their personal space too. Pretty much if you are in the same space and if you are not strangers then ignoring them is pretty damn rude. you can always excuse yourself and then give your device your attention. Anything less is being pretty dickish however if you are in the company of someone similar to yourself then it may be acceptable. You must realise that a large majority of people would find your behaviour offensive.

To be fair smart phones are pretty good at queueing up notifications. friends can post things, email arrives, the phone is pretty good at keeping me informed with a brief tone to let me know something could require my attention. However the extra stage of bringing it out is a useful one as i get to choose when to respond.

Google glass and the pebble don't lend themselves to the idea of putting them away. kind of like bluetooth headsets are useful but unless you have a lot of calls coming in they are also putting the technology in front of the user. I think that really is the issue. As a user technology should assist but, some of these devices put the user as the peripheral to the device. That's not good, not good at all. I can see how some people can relate to the technology better than with people but i think they are in the minority. I could see work situations thou where google glass was a key part of how somebody works much like a 2 way radio can be a necessary part of somebodies working day.

 

Re: The wrong signal? (2)

tchuladdiass (174342) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184597)

That is one thing that really gets under my skin -- when I am visiting with someone (i.e., I took the effort to go over to their space, whether it is a co-worker's office, or visiting with family), and their phone rings. No matter what we're in the middle of talking about, that phone call always gets priority.

Re:The wrong signal? (3, Interesting)

meerling (1487879) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183731)

I've got a (ex)wife that won't fail to answer/reply to a text, even when driving. (Unless it's me, of course.) I've yelled at her many times for texting while driving, and she's gotten 3 very expensive traffic tickets for that so far. (Unless there're more I didn't find out about.)

Some people won't stop, it's as though it's wired into their brains and everything else is second if not third.

Re:The wrong signal? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184365)

Lucky you're not a vindictive ex, texting her whenever you know she driving. But I guess these days you can be held responsible if she's in an accident if you do that...

No, no we aren't (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183495)

The social stigma of checking your damn watch still hasn't gone away, and we expect people to accept wearables like Google Glass? Maybe when the boomers and the gen x/y are pretty much gone, the melianals will maybe think it is ok at that point.

The ability of some people to multitask by emailing/txting and having a conversation has to be acknowledged by society as a whole before wearable will even have a chance.

Re:No, no we aren't (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184447)

Its the power of advertising.

Hell, Virginia Slims marketed a product to women that makes their face look like the rear-end of a diesel bus - and actually sold them on the product!

People thought I was being rude (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183501)

People thought I was being rude and checking the time constantly when I was really monitoring incoming messages

So you were being rude by ignoring them and 'monitoring' incoming messages.

Re:People thought I was being rude (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183597)

You check your watch for incoming messages. You look at your phone to check the time.

So, it has come to this.

Re:People thought I was being rude (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183639)

You check your watch for incoming messages. You look at your phone to check the time.

So, it has come to this.

I call people with my wall clock.

Obligatory (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184767)

You check your watch for incoming messages. You look at your phone to check the time.

So, it has come to this.

http://xkcd.com/1022/ [xkcd.com]

we've had wearable communication devices for years (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183521)

they're called pagers. I know now one but drug dealers and doctors wear them anymore, but they do exist.

I wear a pager for work and frequently have to wear it when out in public. I can turn the alert from audible to vibrate when I am in public. Most relevant to the issue at hand, it took me 1-2 years after I got my first pager to train myself to not automatically look at the pager as soon as a message/phone number came in.

In short, you CAN train yourself to not look instantly once you get it through your head that you are not expecting an urgent/emergency alert.

Similarly, hospitals are environments where, because of the ubiquity of wearable communication devices (ie pagers) it has become socially acceptable to read incoming messages almost anytime.

My conclusion is that these two forces will apply outside of the hospital/drug deal: people will learn to resist looking instantly at their watch or other wearable device unless they really are expecting something urgent and bystanders (many of whom will have wearables of their own) will grow to accept more frequent checking of such devices in the correct context.

Re:we've had wearable communication devices for ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183823)

Anyone still use pagers?

Here, they disappeared completely when sms appeared and got similiar coverage. A few years later, and that is many years ago, they shut down the pager infrastructure. It saw so little use - it didn't pay to have parallel systems. Each and every mobile phone support at least SMS - and when they get an SMS, they can both read the details in the message, and use the phone to call for more info. Kids see a pager in a classic movie now and don't know what it is.

Mobile phones do so much more than pagers ever did - and I am not even talking about smartphones. Why do anybody still want pagers? For what? Even Africa use mobile phones now.

Re:we've had wearable communication devices for ye (2)

mark_reh (2015546) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184759)

Hospitals still use pagers for one simple reason. They are 1000x more reliable than a text message. Pager system coverage areas are far larger and more saturated with signals than cell systems which are full of holes in coverage. The signaling scheme used in paging systems is more reliable and the frequencies used penetrate buildings better than cell signals.

Re:we've had wearable communication devices for ye (4, Informative)

Libertarian001 (453712) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183863)

I wear a pager for work (hospital environment). When there, everyone knows exactly why I'm checking it immediately if it goes off. When there or elsewhere, I apologize for checking it by saying, "Sorry, I'm on call. I need to check this." Usually they ask if I need to take it. If I don't, I tell them someone else will get it (we blast to the entire group). If I do, I tell them I'll get it when we're finished. Yes, the stuff I work on is that time critical. 5 minutes can be, and has been, the difference between getting the parts I need that day and getting them back up, or them being down an extra day. I think the key is to tell your audience what's going on instead of just tuning them out.

Say "cheese" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183549)

New vistas in stalking.

From Neal Stephenson's 'Snow Crash' (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183585)

"Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back, on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider; these getups are the modern-day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculator pouch on the belt, marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below human society. They are a boon to Hiro because they embody the worst stereotype of the CIC stringer. They draw all the attention. The payoff for this self-imposed ostracism is that you can be in the Metaverse all the time, and gather intelligence all the time."

Sure, no problem (0)

djupedal (584558) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183589)

Because we all know how lovable those two are when one says "I'm near the tools" belarpp and the other says "I'm near the linens" deeeep. Who doesn't love to be part of someone else's game of big box marco polo. . .

If it gets common we will adapt (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183611)

I remember someone telling me once, he was one of the very first people who got a earplug/microphone for his cell phone and even cell phones were fairly rare. So he was apparently talking straight into thin air to someone who wasn't there, holding a conversation with them. Unless they spotted the earpiece and realized what it was, people thought he was certifiably insane. Today nobody would blink twice at that.

Re:If it gets common we will adapt (2)

dinfinity (2300094) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183657)

Today nobody would blink twice at that.

Blink: No.
Feel the urge to repeatedly punch them in the face? Yes.

Re:If it gets common we will adapt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183733)

A little fat fagot of a nerd like you punching someone? you'd be taken down and beaten to death before you'd finish your swing.

Re:If it gets common we will adapt (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45184647)

How do you know he is a faggot. It seems like this is the pot calling the kettle black. You sound to me like you are the toughest guy on the internets. That is saying quite a bit. Maybe you and Chuck Norris could do something usefull like free Tibet by kicking all of the PRC's collective asses. I heard that everyone in China was a short little yellow faggot nerd, kind of like this guy, only not as fat. You and Chuck should have no problem with this little task at all. You will probably be back before lunch, and have time to kick my lilly white as too.

Good Luck To You
-Free Tibet.

Re:If it gets common we will adapt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183737)

Feel the urge to repeatedly punch them in the face? Yes.

Trayvon, I thought you are gone!

Re:If it gets common we will adapt (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183835)

I don't know where you live, but it's still odd to see people talking on a bluetooth or single earbud when walking around. People still get confused and think they are talking to someone to themselves. That said, I don't see many people with bluetooth outside of driving.

I live on the east coast, so not exactly an unpopulated area.

neural computing (1)

Xicor (2738029) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183613)

what are they going to do when we have neurally connected computers that sync with our brains?

Re:neural computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183735)

Living for the swarm

Captcha : unionize

Silent Mode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183625)

So, wearable devices such as watches don't have silent mode? (No, I'm not talking about vibrate mode).

Form Factor (5, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183635)

I think it's all about the form factor, and Google has gotten it wrong with Google Glass. IMO, the best possible form factor for wearable computing is that of a wrist watch. Even in that regard, companies like Samsung have still gotten it wrong, and for the exact opposite reason that Google has gone wrong.

Glasses are essentially a display device. They should be an I/O type peripheral, but Google made them the heart of the system. They can't be anything but glasses, on your face, obvious to everyone, with a camera sitting there pointing at everyone, drawing suspicion about what is being recorded or what you might be seeing, etc. They should not be the core of the system, but a peripheral to be used only when needed for those specific functions.

Now take Samsung's watch. It SHOULD be the core of the system. It should have your CPU, storage, networking, etc, because it is a non-invasive device that billions of people are already used to wearing all day every day. It is the optimum form factor for having with you all the time everywhere you go (even while swimming, etc). But instead they made it a mere peripheral for their phones / tablets.

The watch should be the core of the system. You can do simple tasks with its small display, it can vibrate in different places (on the bottom of the band, in the watch, etc) in different patterns that could communicate a variety of things without any annoying sound effects (since it's on the wrist the vibration could be very light, unlike a cell phone which has to be felt through clothing, etc). Then if you need a bigger display, you grab a tablet IO device (a mere wireless peripheral for IO for your watch), or a device like Google Glass, or you simply output media from your watch to the nearest TV, etc.

Anyway, IMO I think everyone is getting it totally backwards when it comes to wearable computing devices.

Re:Form Factor (1)

n30na (1525807) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183799)

I would argue that glasses are a just goddamn fine form factor as long as they look like normal glasses.. we just need to give the tech a few more years. It would also help to have a less shit interface to it.

Re:Form Factor (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184273)

I would buy a HUD if it looked like a normal pair of glasses (with 2 screens for 3d augmented reality) but i still think the watch makes a good heart of the system, due to its portability and easy yet unassuming access.

Re:Form Factor (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184211)

Oh, how i agree sir. Problem is the tech giants won't want to make it the heart, because that will cannibalise the already very profitable smartphone market. Once one company makes a nice version with its own modem (flexible wrap around screen that’s easy to put on and take off) and it's an inevitable runaway success, then every man and his dog will offer a sim card version of the smart watch. One small issue is battery capacity, but by spreading them out around the band and increases in battery technology, we should be able to make some damn sexy watch-smart-phones soon. I reckon that is apples way to come back to relevance, but the lure of a couple of extra quick bucks now selling an accessory for the iphone may be too great.

Re:Form Factor (3, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184895)

Not a bad analysis, but I think it misses something. Right now, the watch phones have too poor a battery life to have significant processing power. The watch might make a decent display, but that's about all it can do with any quality. So it's in the same realm as the glasses.

We're going to need person-area networks. Put a big battery and a powerful computer system in your pocket, have it connect to the watch and glasses for user I/O. Problem is, at that point you may as well slap a screen on the computer part, and then you've got a full smartphone, which reduces the necessity of the other two.

Co.. RING (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183647)

If you convince your mom to put it on my **** then why not!

Doesn't Glasshole say it all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183671)

Which is not to say that the day won't come when _everyone_ is _always_ "jacked in."

William Gibson nearly had it right in, I forget, was it Burning Chrome or Mona Lisa Overdrive, with the microsoft (versus MicroSoft®) slot surgically implanted at the base of your skull.

Ha ha, the captch is "vacuous"

No No No (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183707)

Do Not Want.

Too fragile for the wrist. (3, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183715)

My phone has the time, it does all of the messaging already, better than a 'wearable' on my wrist, phone is stowed safely in my pocket. I can count at least 10 watches in my life that got scratched faces, damaged from shocks, or got hooked on something and had the strap break, bye-bye watch!

So now, I'm expected to do the consumer thing again by buying an over-priced, extremely fragile and unperfected new piece of tech. Thanks anyway, I'll pass on this 'magic'.

Re:Too fragile for the wrist. (3, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183869)

Lots of people have expensive watches (some of them very expensive) and most of them seem to have no problem keeping them intact. (However, in your case, maybe a watch is not a good idea.)
A wrist watch is much more convenient than digging into your pocket to check the time, messages, etc. So just as wrist watches superseded pocket watches, smart watches will supersede pocket phones.

Re:Too fragile for the wrist. (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184021)

Some people do still wear watches - but I stopped wearing one shortly after I purchased my first cell phone.

If I had to dress better for work than my usual cargo pants plus casual shirt, though, I might still wear a watch occasionally - but it would be a "style" thing, since there's no real utility in wearing one nowadays.

Re:Too fragile for the wrist. (1)

mspohr (589790) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184077)

The utility of a smart watch is that has the functionality of your smart phone (without the pocket bulge... or do you like to "augment" your bulge with your phone?).

Re:Too fragile for the wrist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184433)

Smart watches aren't yet so ''smart'', as they still rely on that thing in your pocket to communicate.

Re:Too fragile for the wrist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184081)

And maybe he's just not into jewelry. Lots of people who can afford necklaces, diamond rings and expensive watches choose not to wear them. Perhaps they aren't into being ostentacious, preferring function over fashion.

Re:Too fragile for the wrist. (3, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184275)

Lots of people have expensive watches (some of them very expensive) and most of them seem to have no problem keeping them intact. (However, in your case, maybe a watch is not a good idea.)

My life and professions have been probably more 'active' than others. Once cellphones became realistic to own was the last time I ever wore a watch. One less thing to think about/care for. No, I've learned 'wearables' are not for me.

Sometimes lately I'll go days before checking my phone for messages, as I've been able to re-learn how it feels again to not feel the need to be always 'connected'. It's rather freeing.

When tech catches up to the point where everything is incorporated into one sole device, that won't have need for constant attention from the user, perhaps I'll adopt in. I'll check back in a few years...

Re:Too fragile for the wrist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45184899)

Expected? ...That's the saddest thing I've read today.

Reaction to Google Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183749)

The reaction to someone wearing Google Glass should be the same as if someone held their cell phone like they were recording a video of you. Maybe they aren't, but you don't know.

Take them off or go away. It's rude otherwise.

Nope (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183751)

They may just be tools, but they'll make you look like one too.

The fundamental problem (1)

msobkow (48369) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183761)

The fundamental problem with all wearable computing and cell phones is that they are an interruptive technology. While they do queue up SMS messages and emails so you can deal with them when convenient, people don't do so. Instead they rudely proceed to stop whatever they're doing, even a conversation, to deal with the message right now.

There is no excuse for it other than being rude.

Who would want it? (5, Insightful)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183807)

Where are we going? Is this a borg society where people are going to be continuously plugged into some sort of network grid and that's the most important thing in the world?

There are scientists and engineers pushing this idea of wearable computing because it seems cool. What we need isn't the opinion of scientists and engineers, we need to focus on philosophy. Adjust society for computer? Bah, what a load of hogwash. Adjust computing for society! Stop thinking like a computer engineer and start thinking like a human being .. not a human doing.

Re:Who would want it? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184063)

With the original computer revolution, being a nerd suddenly became sort of cool. Now that geeks are attempting to drive the way society is heading with these sorts of things, though, I wonder how long it will be before society as a whole says "oh, yeah, THIS is why we relegated these guys to the back room of the library way back then..."

Re:Who would want it? (2)

gnoshi (314933) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184089)

We're continuously adjusting society for various technological changes. At some point, there would have been social adjustment for whether it was polite to have a record on in the background while having guests, or answering the landline telephone during a conversation, or having the TV on in the background when eating dinner.
This is no different. Social norms need to be developed to match new developments in technology.

There is a valid discussion to be had about the social impacts of being continuously connected to a broader 'network' of friends, information, and so on. I think that is the discussion you want to have, not the one about social norms.

Do Not Disturb (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183829)

Surely it's within the wit of designers to include a feature to stop interrupting me for a while, either for a set duration or until I say otherwise?

Re: Are We Socially Ready For Wearable Computing? (1)

MobSwatter (2884921) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183897)

I do not believe we are ready, nor have we as a people have been ready for much that may be thrown at us at this point. Recent things that have been brought to light involving the example set forth by our government: If people break the law, it is public record and evening news, if the government breaks the law, it's classified, that is a double standard and not a healthy or trustworthy attribute of a government. I doubt that the people believe such a device does not include a back door installed by the NSA or some other invasive corporate marketing directive, nor did they ever believe they would have to contend with military force being applied by a government on it's own people (being that the NSA is DOD rooted). The first response to revelations brought to light by Snowden is the government has tried to turn the tables and stated that Snowden is to blame for both the information awareness apparatus for the 'war on terrorism' and economic damage that has resulted. There are people out there that do not mind their privacy being invaded and I realize that, though there are others that are not terrorists or criminal that are offended by all this and further are a bit pist that this is what their tax dollars are spent on, so maybe it's time for a vote by the actual people rather than corporate owned political assets before we move forward with tech advances for now, hate to see something that might be a good product get swept aside due to the current situation at hand.

Just like every cyberpunk setting (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183947)

We are ready because the technology is there. There will always be people that will look down on wearable technology, and in the future implanted technology. They dont matter. Technology wont stop, they will either adapt, or just eventually die.

Are We Socially Ready For Wearable Computing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45183961)

No and hopefully we never are.

Google Glass should be outlawed. (1, Insightful)

FlyingGuy (989135) | 1 year,5 days | (#45183981)

I will give a person one chance to take them off and put them away around me. If it is a public place that I spend money, I will be polite and ask, "Please put that camera away.", if they refuse, I will go straight to the business owner, tell that that I am leaving and will no longer spend my money in their establishment as long as they allow those things, and leave. If it is in my home, they get the one chance and if they refuse, they will be unceremoniously ejected, if they argue the point, they get my fist right into their google glasses and then they will be thrown ( literately ) out my door and off of my property.

As to the rest, if someone does not have social skills to know that constantly twiddling with their latest toy while in a conversation is just plain fucking RUDE I will make them aware of that and then leave.

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (1)

gnoshi (314933) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184141)

That's all part of the development of social norms. The reason that signs such as 'we will not serve you while you are using your mobile phone' exist is because a set of norms are not universally accepted. Someone, at some point, decided that the norm they wanted in the store was one of not using your phone while interacting with the staff. By expressing your preferences and expectations, you are contributing to the formation of those standards of social behaviour.
That may have been because it took longer to serve distracted people, or because the staff or management felt it was rude for people to be on their phones while being served. In any case, it is norm formation and enforcement.

Of course, generally norm formation doesn't extend to punching someone in the face. There are norms against assault. Norms, and laws.

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184271)

So an easily accessible and quickly available way of recording should be outlawed for exactly that reason?
Let me guess, you are a cop and like to beat people up?

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184309)

Agreed with you on this. I'm just as irked when people are filming me in a restaurant with their cell phones.

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184353)

I love the way you go from literally punching your houseguests in the face to complaining about people who lack social skills.

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (4, Interesting)

greggman (102198) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184519)

I will politely tell you go shove it. You have no right to tell me what I can remember or how I can remember it whether I see it with organic eyes or digital eyes, hear it with organic ears or digital ears and store it in organic memory or digital memory. You also have no right to tell me who can I share my memories with or how I share them whether with analog audio or digital audio, whether with analog transmission or digital transmission.

The rest of us will augment. First it will start with people that can't see or can't hear or can't remember things well, then it will continue to most of the rest of us. It's only a matter of time. Just like we augmented our skin with clothing, our feet with shoes, our brains with slide rules, then calculators, then computers, we'll do the same with sight, sound, and memory.

If you're not ready for that too bad for you.

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (3, Insightful)

Dare (18856) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184841)

I for one have no problem with you augmenting your eyes, ears and memory. I do have a bit of a problem with Google sharing your augmentations.

Honestly, I would have no problem with a wearable, even always-on camera. It's the Google's panopticon bit I have reservations with.

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45184875)

...and why should we cater to your feeble disabilities?

Sorry pal. Eat a dick.

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45184717)

they get my fist right into their google glasses
+1

Re:Google Glass should be outlawed. (1)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184865)

If it is a public place that I spend money, I will be polite and ask, "Please put that camera away.", if they refuse, I will go straight to the business owner, tell that that I am leaving and will no longer spend my money in their establishment as long as they allow those things, and leave.

Of course it's probably not a choice of losing your business or losing no business. If those people don't want to put their Google Glass away and will find some other place to eat lunch next time, that's money lost too. By all means vote with your wallet, but if this becomes another fad in our increasingly more always-online society I doubt your pockets are deep enough. It's not obviously disruptive to other people so I think general apathy will win. Yeah, there's a bunch of people there with Google Glass and they might record me eating a burger but so what. It's not like you have an expectation of privacy for eating a burger in public and if you really wanted to do covert surveillance you probably could anyway.

FIRST POST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184071)

HAS GROUND TO A [goat.cx]

Buy an extended warranty (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45184111)

If I am in a bar and you take video of me, you will
be shopping for a new device shortly thereafter.

Google Glass - Most Important Function (4, Funny)

germansausage (682057) | 1 year,5 days | (#45184259)

Apparently the most important function of Google Glass is to summon "Internet Tough Guys" to post on Slashdot.

"If somebody dares to wear Google Glasses without my permission I will shoot them in the face ....with a bazooka!!"

Re:Google Glass - Most Important Function (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45184537)

Apparently the most important function of Google Glass is to summon "Internet Tough Guys" to post on Slashdot.

And then there are smartass cock-gobblers like you who are obviously in
search of a good beating which is obviously overdue.

I don't have time (1)

ihtoit (3393327) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184673)

...to waste on waiting for people to finish their teleconversations, I got better fucking things to do. Like for instance, dealing with the next in line who's obviously not engaged in some inane drivel about what colour knickers Miley Bleedin' Cyrus might be wearing today and just wants to pay for his shit and go...

Not on your social radar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45184903)

Despite popular opinion, Google Glass is not the first wearable, not even the first "commercially available" wearable.

Article asks a stupid question (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | 1 year,4 days | (#45184973)

We're never socially ready for ANYTHING new. The process of building social norms around something can't start until after that thing is introduced. The implication, then (often made explicit by hand-wringers calling themselves "ethicists" or some such thing) that we should stop the thing until we ARE "socially ready" for is equivalent to pure conservativism -- stopping everything new.

Meh. (1)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | 1 year,4 days | (#45185003)

How is this any different than people who do nothing than stare at their phone nearly every minute of the day? If I see some guy wearing Google Glass, I'll totally engage him and talk with him, because it's a great piece of technology. As for the social aspect...it's not a real issue. People willingly give their SSN to overseas customer service reps all the time.

never... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45185071)

Humanity has never been socially ready for change, even tho it is just about the only constant in life.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?