Glass wearers: they’re just like us! At least, that’s what Google is desperate for us to think.
Google begins the post with a homey, relatable, just-us-girls description of several popular urban myths. Then, BLAM!, they bait-and-switch us into listening to their pitiable diatribe on Glassholes.
“Myths can be fun, but they can also be confusing or unsettling. And if spoken enough, they can morph into something that resembles fact,” the post says. “…In its relatively short existence, Glass has seen some myths develop around it. While we’re flattered by the attention, we thought it might make sense to tackle them, just to clear the air.”
But for the most part, Google’s disproofs all feel like desperate, last-ditch attempts to finally get the public on Google Glass’ side. Look at this lame-o example:
“Myth 3 – Glass Explorers are technology-worshipping geeks
Our Explorers come from all walks of life. They include parents, firefighters, zookeepers, brewmasters, film students, reporters, and doctors. The one thing they have in common is that they see the potential for people to use technology in a way that helps them engage more with the world around them, rather than distract them from it. In fact, many Explorers say because of Glass they use technology less, because they’re using it much more efficiently. We know what you’re thinking: “I’m not distracted by technology”. But the next time you’re on the subway, or, sitting on a bench, or in a coffee shop, just look at the people around you. You might be surprised at what you see.”
Listen Google, I don’t care how muscly and hot a firefighter is; if they’re wearing a computer on their face, they’re still a big ol’ nerd. Case closed. Don’t try to convince me otherwise.
This isn’t the first time Google has had to run Glass-related damage control. In February, they released a blog post urging Explorers not to be “rude,” “creepy” “Glassholes.”
It all seems a little sad, to be honest; we have to think that if Google has to work this hard to convince people not to hate Glass, then maybe, it’s not a good product — or there are elements to it that still need serious tweaking. Like, don’t make it a face computer.