The concept of “augmented reality,” in which digital
information overlays the natural sensory experience of the user, seems to be
gaining traction in Silicon Valley as a driving force behind a new breed of
personal electronic devices.
![]() |
Photo credit: Antonio Zugaldia (CC BY 2.0) |
Andy Clark explores the potential for this technology in his
2003 book Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence, writing that the use of these “digital resources to enhance our
ordinary daily experience of the world and to provide new means of
physical-virtual interaction is likely to play a major role in the next decade”
(53). Whether such products end up being as game changing—or as commercially
viable—as the corporate execs and tech gurus behind them hope they will remains
to be seen.
Nevertheless, a decade after Clark’s words were published,
the tech giant Google is among the first major companies eager to validate his
claim by introducing an augmented reality device to the public. Google Glass, a
wearable computer device and head-mounted display, is slated to be made
available for beta testing not only to software developers but also to a select
number of “bold, creative individuals” who applied for the opportunity to
become early adopters of the technology and to provide valuable feedback to the
company as it continues to improve the product before a wider public release.
Programmers were able to sign up for the initial version of
Glass, dubbed the Explorer edition, at last year’s Google I/O conference; the
first devices started rolling off the production line this month and are being
currently being distributed in batches as they are manufactured. In February,
the company unveiled its #ifihadglass campaign; members of the general public
were able to apply for the chance to purchase their own souped-up specs via
Twitter and Google+ by posting brief descriptions of how they would use the
device, designating their entries as such by using the #ifihadglass hashtag.
The 8,000 successful applicants are presently awaiting details about when a
special pick-up event—to be held in New York, Los Angeles, and San
Francisco—will take place.
I submitted my own hastily-prepared 50-word application in
February after learning about the opportunity only days before the deadline. My
cousin alerted me about the promotion shortly before I and my family traveled
to Arizona for a family event; I was not at all confident in my application, a
last-minute submission thrown together in my aunt and uncle’s house in the
hours before the application window closed.
My wife was probably surprised that I wanted to apply at
all; although my scholarly interest is the intersection of culture and
technology, I am not what most would consider an early adopter. I am no
Luddite*, but I typically prefer to wait through the first few expensive,
limited models of a new device and purchase one of my own only after the
consumer market has vetted the contenders and manufacturers have perfected
their designs. However, despite Glass’s steep price tag (somewhere between
$1,200 and $1,500) and the knowledge that this version is essentially a public
prototype of what will next year be a much improved (and more affordable)
commercial device, I was intrigued by the concept and waited eagerly for the
results of the competition to be released.
After a long month of silence from the Project Glass team, I
received a congratulatory message on Google+ notifying me that I was selected
to participate in their “Glass Explorers” program. In my application, I had
claimed that I would develop a blog to chronicle my experiences with the
nascent technology; you are reading the first entry in my fulfillment of that
promise. Among topics that will be addressed in future posts are the following:
- Fashion and social acceptance—will such devices be welcomed or mocked by the public at large? Will Glass gain social cachet and the “cool factor” like the iPhone did, or will it be stigmatized in the way that Bluetooth headsets have been?
- The digital divide—some social commentators argue that there is a growing gulf between those with and without access to digital technologies. With its hefty initial cost making it unaffordable for many, will Glass contribute to the problem?
- Neuroplasticity—in what ways do such interactive technologies influence the ways in which our minds function? How quickly can users adapt to an interface that is designed not to be at the center of their field of vision?
- Technophilia—does our gadget-obsessed culture need another whiz-bang gizmo? Is our technolust strong enough to enable this platform to endure, or is it destined to be a mere fad?
- Convergence—how does this device represent the merger of disparate technologies, and what is gained (or lost) in doing so?
Although the #ifihadglass campaign was the impetus behind the
creation of this site, my goal is not simply to focus on the Google Glass
product itself, but rather to use it as a starting point for a more in-depth
investigation of other similar technologies (a half dozen companies are working
on Dick Tracy-style wristwatches, for instance, another example of wearable
computing) and the ways in which they will potentially impact our social
interactions in the near future.
Just as the cell phone has, in four decades, revolutionized our culture,
so, too, might augmented reality and wearable computing gear radically shape
interpersonal interaction in the next few dozen years.
Then again, this niche tech might very well fail to capture
the interest of a public that has been saturated in the last five years with a
host of mobile computing devices. Google Glass represents a new form factor—a
new style and arrangement of various computing elements and other electronic
components—that may signal either an exciting shift in the ways in which people
interact with technology (like the smartphone or iPad) or a disastrous public
flop (like the Segway personal transport system,** which failed to live up to its hype and is now more likely to be the subject of a punchline than serious
praise). Whether any of these individual augmented reality and/or wearable
computing products takes off, the concept itself is sure to have an influence
not only on the future of the tech market but on our broader culture as well.
In the mean time, I am excited about becoming a Glass
Explorer and eager to blog about its promise and pitfalls. I invite you to join
me in this journey; follow my Twitter account to be informed about new blog
posts and to receive updates on Project Glass as well as news items about
cyberculture. Let’s have an adventure!
*The historical Luddites were actually neither
anti-technology nor mechanically inept, points addressed by both an excellent
Smithsonian piece and a discussion on the Singularity episode of my favorite
podcast, Stuff You Should Know (start at the 2:49 mark). I think it’s
fascinating how the cultural meaning of a phrase can evolve and become divorced
from its historical reality.
** They have been widely viewed as impractical and a
commercial disappointment. I admit, however, that I'd still love to have
one--what a great geek toy!
Looks great! I can't wait for you to get bloggin'.
ReplyDelete