> I honestly though(t) Glass would have done better if it had no recording capabilities built-in. It would have substantially reduced the creepiness factor.
Outside of the tech community this is a distinction I imagine few would make - most people upon seeing a camera are going to not unreasonably assume it can record. I still see large numbers of people taping over their laptop webcams even when they are turned off.
I think the simpler explanation is that strapping a camera to your face is simply inappropriate or off-putting in some social settings for many people.
It isn't just outside of tech that people cover their webcams. Mark Zuckerberg does it[1]. EFF sells webcam covers[2]. James Comey does it (although maybe he's not exactly tech)[3]. I've seen articles claiming Snowden does it, but I can't find a good source, that might just be rumors.
I probably should have been clearer - I have no issue with the practice of covering webcams, it's simply a great example of how "camera conscious" many people are.
> I think the simpler explanation is that strapping a camera to your face is simply inappropriate or off-putting in some social settings, at least with today's typical social norms.
Didn't help that the only people who did/could/would buy the first glass prototypes were nerds who apparently started using them in bars and clubs. That solidified its image as "creepy".
Contrast it with Spectacles, a product designed to record as much as possible. But since it was marketed/targeted towards "cool" people, it never got the creepy trait.
The typical use case for Spectacles, at least as I see it, is a little different though. Spectacles is much more like a Go Pro, in that I will be out doing some kind of activity I want to share with friends. People also typically don't wear sunglasses indoors, my expectation of privacy is very different outdoors vs indoors.
The approach with Google Glass was very different, where Google were arguably prototyping a device intended to be worn all the time, including indoors and in scenarios were people typically would not normally expect to be photographed or filmed.
I've no idea, but in central California I often see at least one person wearing them any time I go near a busy beach, which is most weekends. If the article below is to be believed, approx 60,000 pairs in Q1. Given the enormous disparity in price between the two I'd assume they are outselling Glass as well.
> I still see large numbers of people taping over their laptop webcams even when they are turned off.
Good. That isn't a demonstration of technical illiteracy. There have been plenty of vulnerabilities shown in webcams and microphones, and even the indicator LEDs can be disabled remotely
Outside of the tech community this is a distinction I imagine few would make - most people upon seeing a camera are going to not unreasonably assume it can record. I still see large numbers of people taping over their laptop webcams even when they are turned off.
I think the simpler explanation is that strapping a camera to your face is simply inappropriate or off-putting in some social settings for many people.