The Polarizing Attributes Of Google Glass Will Prevent It From Becoming A Mainstream Technology (And God Help Us If I'm Wrong)

Google, deny as they may, has always been in the privacy disruption business. Like their frenemy, Facebook, they've built a search empire around collecting as much data as they can conceivably access and they have few qualms about blurring the line between public and private information in order to keep the matrix growing. Google Glass, their high tech spectacle invention, is the next foray into privacy invasion.

I've been reading a lot lately about Glass. The Google team has just released version 2.0 of the spectacle software, opening up new and much requested options for developers with hopes it may finally lead to the killer app that will propel Glass into the mainstream. Early in 2014, Google will begin to sell units to the public. Currently only a beta product, getting an exclusive set of Google specs means filling out an application.

Daring Fireball's John Gruber predicted in a recent posting that the x-ray specs, although interesting and bound to discover a niche market, will fail as a mainstream product.  In a recent New Yorker article, Gary Shetyngart, one of the first people to obtain a Google Glass set, described his early experiences. Reactions to the technology from New Yorkers went either two ways — unbridled enthusiasm and manic adulation usually reserved for rock stars. Or a threat to break the glasses followed by Shetyngart's face.

I'll hand it to Google—they're riding the bust-out-of-the-box pioneering spirit not seen since Steve Jobs was healthy, vigorous and pissed off. Irregardless of whether their new ventures into wearable technology, autonomous driving or medical research pay off in the long run, you can't say they're not doing some interesting work. It's because of this very trailblazing attitude that I want to put on a pair of Google Glasses and see how they work.

And then I want to take them off and never put them on again.

That paradoxical combination of fascination and detachment perfectly captures the essence of Google Glass and why Gruber and others who share his view are correct in their predictions. Google envisions a world where we all abandon our smartphones and computers, plug in our wired spectacles and get on with our jobs. However, it's not going to happen.

Whereas the iPhone, Galaxy, (insert your favourite post iPhone smartphones here) have a way of bringing people together, the concept of Google Glass serves to push people apart and this polarizing attribute will be the reason it fails to go mainstream. Yes, I know too many people who check their smartphone constantly for incoming data, brushing off the people standing right in front of them without a second thought. But, I also see many people sharing vacation photos, pet videos and their Angry Birds high score. Small as it is, a smartphone screen can be communal, easily passed around and bringing people together.

Google Glass, with its screen located inside the spectacle's frame and an audio system based on transmitting vibrations from your own skull bone is insular technology (a Secret Service inspired earpiece is now a secondary option). Its greatest moment of community building will be over the next year as people are brought together out of novelty. Like me, they'll want experience what the technology is all about. When the initial interest dies down however, there will be little sharing. Glass keeps you in your own insular world. Shetyngart describes the sensation of hearing the Google Glass voice as having voices in your head. Guess what? They are in there. And you're in there with them!

Here's the core of the problem — the conscious attention of Glass wearers is either in too close or out too far for any meaningful interaction with the immediate world. It's either a Peeping Tom invasion of privacy as you surreptitiously snap photos or record the actions of those around you. Or it's a cold indifference, an immediate disconnect from the occurring moment as a tweet pops in or you check your holdings in Google stock. Too close or too far.  Shetyngary introduces a term that has already stuck with me — Glassholes.  This is the description given to people who wear their Google Glass sets all day long. For those of us outside the glasses, sensing this push and pull of invasion vs. disconnect, muttering Glasshole will come without much effort. Already, Google Glass has been banned in bars, casinos and other public places due to its social threat. Check out Lost Lake Bar's policy posted on Facebook.

And what exactly are Google's intentions with Glass? To sell a ka-jillion of them? Or to introduce another torrent of searchable data? Don't think that Google doesn't have the big picture in mind, getting access to all those recorded images and movies and the requests made through Google Voice. It's about collecting data and what's better than the raw data your eyeballs see all day long. Google has their eye, literally, on the holy grail of information.

Glass will have a niche market. It will be ideal for documentation — think of a pathologist performing an autopsy and being able to record to video what they see. Or assisting Alzheimer's patients to remember the names of family members and friends in front of them. But beyond these specialized uses, people will be less tolerant, readily aware of the polarizing social issues Google Glass brings.

I didn't understand the iPhone when it first came out. But, the moment I first held one, I was profoundly struck by its potential. Could I be missing the whole point of Glass here too? I don't even want to think about it. Distraction and the struggle to remain consciously connected with the ongoing real world is becoming our greatest challenge of this century. Distracted driving, (i.e. texting and checking Email on your phone) has quickly become the leading cause of fatal car accidents, overtaking impaired driving. Google Glass, if it does find a way to merge into the mainstream, will only accelerate the distraction factor.

We will need to choose. And devices like Glass will be the line in the sand. — Keir Overton


Update: Google founder and CEO, Sergey Brin, and his wife have separated. Sergey is known for wearing his Glass unit all day long. Coincidence? Me thinks his wife finally had enough of being married to a Glasshole.

Rogers $5.2 Billion NHL Deal Is Another Sign Of The Disconnect Between Professional Sports And Reality

Widen the gap between the 99 and 1%. The $5.2 billion deal Rogers Communications struck to broadcast NHL hockey across Canada for the next 12 years is another indicator of the growing disconnect between professional sports and real life.

Despite the massive price tag, Rogers will find a way to profit handsomely from their investment, streaming hockey 24/7 to screens big and small. And fans will continue to watch because it's there, doing what professional sport has always done—ease the unease of everyday life by adding some manufactured excitement.

A backlash, however, is coming. Tired of ponying up to pay corporations and player salaries, fed up with a digitally sanitized sporting experience, sports fans are ready for something different.

The average salary for an NHL player is $2.5 million a year. Major league ball players take home an average of $3.3 million — NBA stars an eye-popping $5.15 million. The average social worker’s salary, someone making a daily difference in children’s lives—just $47,000 or $0.047 million.

Meanwhile, Roger's $5.2 billion for NHL rights is a drop in the bucket compared to the $28 billion paid by Fox, CBS and NBC to broadcast NFL games for nine years. These big money contracts equal boatloads of cash for the team owners and players. With the Rogers deal, NHL teams are due to receive an influx of new funding, increasing the league salary cap and potentially driving up the average player salary well over $3 million by 2018. 

Leaving the fans to pay for it. Ticket prices for the big sporting events are already out of reach for most families. Taking a family of four to a Leafs or Raptors game will set you back close to $500 for a decent experience. Tickets to pro events are now the domain of the wealthy and becoming a rare treat the average fan. Choose to boycott the live games and you'll still get zinged on the cable bill. Rogers already plans an increase the fees for providers to carry their hockey broadcasting channels.

Feeling the pressure, broadcasters will amp up the viewing experience with helmet cams, animated replays, more stats and more ads in your face. The only way I can stand to watch golf now is to record it on PVR and zoom through the endless parade of commercials required to pay Tiger Wood's prize money. The digital flash the networks trot out to "bring the fan closer to the game" will dazzle the senses in the short term until the novelty begins to wear off, leaving viewers with a hollow feeling and the realization that the gulf between them and the action has grown even wider.

The players, having signed lucrative contracts that pay regardless of their performance, grow more apathetic by the season. Broadcasters love to state that it's the "live" element of sports that keep viewers coming back. Live, but not real. Professional sports is about as real as reality TV. Millionaire athletes with no real risk, playing for the glory of a fabricated championship. Where's the authentic desperation, the true risk and reward? If Lebron doesn't win the title this year, he's still going to wake up in his palatial home, still have the money to feed his kids. He may feel the sting of losing, but he's not going to FEEL it. There's no real loss. He hasn't lost anything except for a game and a chip off his ego.

I like watching sports. I enjoy watching the top athletes compete against their counterparts and I'll pay up to see someone under pressure leave it all out on the floor to discover their personal best. But, how much should someone be paid yearly to do that? $100,000? Even that still feels like too much, compared to the efforts of an inspired grade school teacher. But, at least it’s in the realm of somewhat acceptable.

There's dissension in the districts. Grumbling about overpaid princes grows a little stronger with each outlandish contract announcement. To all those voices, I propose something different — underground leagues, a Fight Club of sports, if you will.  Where men and women play for meaningful stakes, where winners get the pot and the losers get nothing. Played in dingy gyms, sour smelling community rinks and beat up patches of turf. No mascots, no jumbo scoreboards, no Haagen Daz bars and $12 beers.

Where a fighting penalty means the risk of losing the game and not getting paid. Where there's sweat, tears or blood that could land on your clothes because you’re so close to the action. Real people, with day jobs to help make ends meet, with bills to pay and mouths to feed, who have nothing but talent and skill and the will to use it to make some extra cash in order to make things a little easier for them and their families. Real desperation. Real desire. And devoted fans, willing to pay to support it, who know the back stories, who understand that there are stakes and a loss is a real loss.

That’s what is missing. See the pampered stars or attend a secret game that means something to the athletes playing it? Personally, I’ll take the latter and I don’t think I’m alone. A savvy promoter somewhere is already sniffing the opportunity. Pro sports has become too big for its britches and it’s ready to be taken down. — Keir Overton