Last week I posted an essay about the adoption and impact on Google Glass that raised more questions that it answered.
Hundreds more questions in fact.
They fell under loose section headings spanning form factor, interaction design, user experience, use cases, business models and anti/social impact. In one section on Google’s corporate culture, were a few items that fell under “creepy”.
This is “creepy” somewhat fleshed out:
You can of course replace “Google” and “Glass” with dozens of other companies and products that are on the market today – a few you know by name, most you don’t. And to be clear some of those companies are past, current and future clients.
They, we, you, I have the resources and smarts to do anything we put our mind to. The trick is understanding the trade-offs and for whom.
#qsforglass is a small step in recalibrating where we want to go.
One of the perceived-compelling use-cases for a future version of Glass (aside from porn) is the ability to mine the cloud in real-time. If, like me, you’re in the business of asking smarter questions – what does it mean when you can see every question you’ve ever publicly asked auto-completing before you?
Photo? Little Sister in Lhasa, a place where the stakes of being recorded and by whom are higher that most.