An old failed Google project can be revived by presenting it as an augmented reality alternative to the immersive virtual environment 100% of metaverses, such as those designed by Meta and certain crypto-native projects, such as Decentraland (MANA) and The Sandbox (SAND), suggested technology journalist Paulo Silvestre in an article published in the blog O Macaco Elétrico, by O Estado de São Paulo.
Google Glass returned to the stage at the end of the opening panel that opened the Google I / O conference on May 11th. Sundar Pichai, CEO of technology giant, briefly unveiled a new prototype of one of the biggest failures in Google’s history.
Google’s annual conference is an event whose main purpose is to present concepts and ideas for technology products and services in development. It’s a kind of preliminary test, in which they are introduced into the imagination of the audience so that the developers can find out whether or not they can get adherence with the users.
The reappearance of Google Glass could offer an alternative based on augmented reality, in which virtual elements are introduced on physical reality, to the metaverse conceived by Mark Zuckerberg – in which everything is virtual, including humans themselves, that their personalities are transferred to avatars.
According to Silvestre, by projecting digital elements onto real environments, augmented reality allows us to “interact with them as if they really exist.” In other words, there is a clear opposition between the two concepts, although it is recognized that the two should coexist in the future.
Launched in the distant year of 2013, at least by the parameters of the technology industry, Google Glass was a personal project of Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google. The electronic device was intended to provide digital services without the need for interaction with a device.
Google Glass has allowed its users to make phone calls, take pictures and record videos, as well as provide access to the Internet through a mini-screen projected in front of users’ eyes.
However, Google Glass has been defeated in its particular struggle with the iPhone. The Apple device has virtually reinvented cell phones, transforming them into devices for connecting and interacting with the Internet where the least important feature is the ability to make phone calls.
On the other hand, Google Glass, on that occasion, did not find a match to the wishes and needs of its users. On the contrary, the presence of spectacle wearers has ended up causing discomfort among others, especially due to the invasion of privacy.
A Google Glass user could record any situation without the consent or even knowledge of others present. And yet it was an object without any aesthetic and visual appeal. That is, the piece attracted attention only and only because of undesirable factors.
Thus, its production was discontinued in 2015. It is now back, always as a prototype – and not a ready-to-market product. However, the return of Google Glass was introduced by Pichai as an artifact that seeks to meet the needs of real users.
In his presentation, the CEO of Google demonstrated the potential of Google Glass to facilitate communication between people. Either to allow understanding between two or more users who communicate in different languages, or even offer resources for people with hearing impairments. The new Google Glass captures the audio of the speaker and projects the translation into subtitles that can be seen by the wearer of the glasses.
shape the future
Often the failure of a technology is as important as its success in shaping the future of society. Although it was an unsuccessful experiment at the time, Google Glass highlighted the risks involved in a technology with such disruptive potential.
Directly or indirectly, the failure of the project has ended up helping to set certain boundaries and ethical standards that product developers and technology solutions need to adhere to if they want their products to be truly user-friendly, he suggests. Silvestre.
Given the dangers of centralizing large platforms such as Google and Facebook, cryptocurrencies and Web3 present themselves as alternatives for distributing resources and power to content creators, for example.
Other types of problems may emerge from this, such as the psychological dependence of digital devices – and in the future possibly on virtual environments. The fact is that between success and failure, concepts such as metaverse, virtual reality and augmented reality are under construction. Soon, they will become part of our everyday experiences, and there is no way to fight them. “What we need is to take full advantage of its benefits and control its risks,” concludes Silvestre.
As Cointelegraph Brasil recently said, the population of developing countries tends to believe more in the positive impacts of metaverse on real life than people living in rich nations.
Follow us on social media
Follow our profile above Instagram and not telegram to receive first hand news!