I love gadgets, but I don’t see myself liking Google Glass. Last week I was having a meeting at a coffee shop in Palo Alto and I finally witnessed my first Google Glass “in the wild.” I’ve watched the videos and seen all the footage hyping this new entrant into the early adopter tech world, but I had yet to see one walking around in real life. While I think the concept of wearable computing is unavoidable and in many cases very cool, I just don’t see myself liking the idea of Google Glass — at least not in its current iteration.
First off, I have glasses and I only wear them a couple of times per week. I could see a future where the visualizations of Google Glass are built into standard glasses rather than the Star Trek-esque format they currently take on, but that’s a long time and a dramatic decrease in price away. Regardless of that iteration, I can’t see it making me want to wear my glasses with more frequency.
Secondly, the number of updates and interruptions I get from data streaming to my phone already annoys me. At least with my phone I can set it aside or leave it in another room. At the very least I can leave it in my pocket and ignore it. If the updates are literally dropped into my field of vision, I’d find it more difficult to ignore. I love being connected, but I require downtime — and Google Glass would appear to make it more difficult to create downtime than would ever outweigh its value-add.
Don’t get me wrong – I am 100% positive that Google Glass will succeed. Wearable computing is the next big thing as we evolve into the “Internet of things.” Each of these devices becomes a signal by which we can monitor and manage our lives using a digital lifestyle dashboard. Personally I love FitBit and Nike Fuel Band, but these are less invasive and more user-initiated.
I love devices that push signals to my phone and how the phone becomes the central point of my digital lifestyle because I can choose to engage or not. I want my refrigerator to do the same. I just want the continued freedom to choose when I accept these updates and interruptions .
I know it’s possible, if not likely, that Google Glass could become an amazing vehicle for advertising. I can foresee location-based ads triggered by viewing specific billboards, buildings or cars. These would be great opportunities for corporations to integrate their message into the real-world experiences of consumers, but I feel the distraction would be too much. It’s already difficult to enjoy the moment with our minds being hyper-distracted by digital media interruptions. As a consumer, how much further am I prepared to go? What’s the reciprocal benefit to me for the sacrifice of what remains of my attention and focus?
If I give it 10 years, or maybe even five, things will certainly change. As guidelines for these kinds of devices emerge and we establish a “bill of rights” that dictates the amount and frequency of interruptions consumers will be forced to tolerate, I reserve the right to change my mind, but for now my opinion stands.
Wearable computing is here and I am onboard, but I don’t see myself jumping on the Google Glass bandwagon in the next few years.
This post was first published by MediaPost.com and is republished with their kind permission.
Want to continue this conversation on The Media Online platforms? Comment on Twitter @MediaTMO or on our Facebook page. Send us your suggestions, comments, contributions or tip-offs via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.