How many people do you know who employ some sort of wearable technology in their daily lives? The Apple Watch, the Fitbit Ionic, Motiv Rings, and the like are truly a new and exciting step in the implementation of computer technology in fashion and all aspects of our reality. Or at least that was the initial forecast back in 2015, when eMarketer anticipated smartwatch sales to increase by 60% the next year.
Though, in a more recent article, eMarket makes it clear that consumers have consistently shrugged off the significance of wearable technology. The 2015 forecast missed the mark by an enormous margin, and continued to disappoint the manufacturers for the next three years. The percentage increase in smartwatch tech consumption could be down to single digits by 2019, and most of the consumers are those who already own similar technology. The American public are not buying wearable technology, neither with their money nor as a "revolutionary" concept.
The article speculates cost as the main deterrent. The net benefit to one's daily life does not justify the price tag. However, at the end of the day, maybe society is simply not that interested in incorporating more technology into everyday life past the comforting external quality of the smartphone. Or, perhaps as the tech gets closer to the skin, it is assumed a more severe dependence might form. This possibility is haunting.
 |
| Thad Starner (2nd from right) and the MIT "Borg" |
Though, according to those who have advocated for wearable Tech and AR (Augmented Reality) tools since their nascent stages, it does not so much challenge our humanity as enhance it. Thad Starner (above), possibly the very first individual to consistently explore and utilize wearable technology, has a remarkable story to tell in this sense.
Recently interviewed on an episode of the popular NPR podcast "Invisibilia," Starner explains his journey to creating LIZZY, his wearable AR system, in 1993. He wore the get-up, consisting of a lead acid battery, a modem connected to a car phone, a twiddler keyboard, and a tiny screen jerry-rigged to some glasses, for 20 years. Every single day. He developed with his friends (other MIT geeks called "the Borg") the Remembrance Agent, which is essentially augmented memory. It allowed Starner to query the information he had entered into LIZZY over the years, displaying it on his screen without distracting from a conversation or class. Besides needing to charge the device, and setting himself on fire once when initially designing it, Starner says the device is indispensable. He corroborates this in an article for engadget.com, in which he goes into even more detail about his LIZZY system and its effects on his life.
"You're really trying to make interfaces that allow people to augment their eyes, ears and mind, but not get mired in the virtual world." - Thad Starner on developing AR technology, engadget.com
A healthy balance of reality and virtual reality. Thad seems to have it figured out. So what's wrong with everyone else? Why is no one leaping at this phenomenal chance for endless memory and a google search of your own thoughts to share with the world? One possible reason is that the wearable tech we have right now is a diluted version of Starner's design. It lacks the intimacy he has allowed it, giving the device responsibility to manage all of his information and deferring to it automatically. Therefore, it lacks the utility he so very much enjoys.
Take, for example, Google Glass. Remember Google Glass? Me too, barely. It was a major flop. In this article describing five reasons the ill-conceived device was a disaster, the most damning piece of evidence is that it had no clear function. It could take pictures and give immediate access to the internet. But phones already accomplish that, and don't feel like you are lugging a barbell around on the side of your head. A $1,500 face barbell. That isn't nearly as sexy as a bottomless memory bank. However, one of the heads of development for Google Glass is the original cyborg himself, Thad Starner. He couldn't replicate LIZZY on a large scale due to its slightly invasive nature.
Certainly no one can argue the utility is incredible. It transcends the difference between having access to something that has an ability, and simply having the ability oneself. Though that transparent nature is what is truly unsettling. If we could input a chip into someone's brain that could run any an A* search method, or run a minimax algorithm to make decisions in a game like connect4, would you prefer those operations run automatically? Like a sharp intake of breath resulting in immediately finding an optimal path? Otherwise, it is the equivalent of having an apple watch or other wearable device that requires tedious manual input. Without surrendering some element of ourselves, we may never be able to unlock the full potential of these devices.
This form of Artificial Intelligence poses so many questions because it is the first step in contemplating our society's maturity level in dealing with human/technical relations. It is not a discussion of manufacturing new consciousness. It is a discussion of building off of our own current consciousness. Incorporating technology into our own psyches on an individual level now could reflect how we will react when we incorporate technology into our society on a grand scale.
Certainly no one can argue the utility is incredible. It transcends the difference between having access to something that has an ability, and simply having the ability oneself. Though that transparent nature is what is truly unsettling. If we could input a chip into someone's brain that could run any an A* search method, or run a minimax algorithm to make decisions in a game like connect4, would you prefer those operations run automatically? Like a sharp intake of breath resulting in immediately finding an optimal path? Otherwise, it is the equivalent of having an apple watch or other wearable device that requires tedious manual input. Without surrendering some element of ourselves, we may never be able to unlock the full potential of these devices.
This form of Artificial Intelligence poses so many questions because it is the first step in contemplating our society's maturity level in dealing with human/technical relations. It is not a discussion of manufacturing new consciousness. It is a discussion of building off of our own current consciousness. Incorporating technology into our own psyches on an individual level now could reflect how we will react when we incorporate technology into our society on a grand scale.
So perhaps the public's apprehension to adopt wearable tech, cyborg implants, or other forms of AR tech goes beyond the price tag. Current AR technology is representative of what we discussed during the debate regarding consciousness. If we ever come to a point where we can give AI consciousness, perhaps we should think better of it. It might simply stunt AI's utility. Similarly, AR companies have thought better of offering something like LIZZY, and even if they offered it, would the public be forward-thinking enough to open themselves up to such an intimate relationship with any device? If we do so, would we have accomplished Artificial Intelligence by using our own current intelligence as the core and adding an artificial component? Would you be willing to take such a leap?
BONUS:
Pete Holmes comedy bit about the role of technology in our lives
BONUS:
Pete Holmes comedy bit about the role of technology in our lives
Photo credit:
Smartwatch Photo: https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?articleId=1840876&type=webcontent
Thad Starner: https://www.engadget.com/2013/05/22/thad-starner-on-google-glass/
Smartwatch Photo: https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?articleId=1840876&type=webcontent
Thad Starner: https://www.engadget.com/2013/05/22/thad-starner-on-google-glass/
I think you are right about the reason why no one has bought into wearable technology and that is because it is not only expensive but offers no real new features than our smartphones beside the fact that you wear it. Some wearable technology also isn't considered very fashionable and can look downright ridiculous like with VR technology. I think this is due to wearable technology being relatively new and not very commonly worn.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a smartwatch for anything besides 1) checking the time, and 2) viewing notifications, in which case they usually proceed to pull out their phone and deal with the notification. It seems like if you have a smartphone with the ability to notify you (e.g. by vibrating or playing an annoying ringtone), having a wearable smart watch is mostly redundant. It just reduces the time it takes to actually pull out the phone a little bit.
DeleteI second Vecna's view on smartwatch usage. I don't think I have ever seen anyone take a call or make a lengthy text on their smartwatch. Everyone uses a phone for those two things because its easier and more socially acceptable.
DeleteI can see the uses for a smartwatch when running or doing other active things to monitor progress or health. It is a lot easier for people to wear a small smartwatch than to hold a large phone or strap it on to their arm.
I don't have a smartwatch and I don't think that they are worth the money at this time. I do know a few people that have them and wear them around everywhere. One of the girls I know wears it to our club basketball practices. I've had to tell her multiple times not to check it during our scrimmages. Do these smartwatches make us too connected to our smartphones?
I disagree with this because I have had an apple watch for about two years and I use it quite a bit. Yes, it offers most of the same capabilities as a normal smartphone does, but it does offer more than meets the eye that I find very useful.
DeleteOne of the most useful features is that I receive notifications on my watch when it "taps" me. This is useful because I don't have to have my phone on me at all times. I could be downstairs with my phone upstairs in my room and I can receive notifications (and reply to texts) without having to retrieve my phone. Yes this may seem lazy but if my phone is on the charger and is on the bring of dying but someone is texting me, this is pretty useful. Not to mention, calls can also be made without having the phone nearby.
Another great use is the fitness technology. This is something that a normal smartphone doesn't quite offer. The apple watch can read heart rate and keeps track of steps, flights of stairs, calories burned, how much exercise you get each day, and how often you stand. Also, with the newer apple watch, I can take the watch with me into the pool to count my laps that I swim (another great use for me since I am a swimmer). Also, the apple watch picks times throughout the day to tell you to "breathe". Basically its a relaxing exercise that helps, me personally, to de-stress at times.
Overall, I think wearable technology really depends on who is going to use it and for what purpose. I think many people just don't see some of the possibilities and are strayed away by the heavy price tag.
I can see what Kyle is saying to some degree, but I don't think it is enough. If you want fitness than you can get a fit-bit, which I have seen more widely used recently. I don't really see the not have phone on you advantage, if you have to leave your phone in your pocket or your phone on your wrist it doesn't seem like enough of a difference to me. No, I agree with other cementers who say there is not enough real utility at the moment. In order for it to be widely successful it will need to have utility that a phone does not. I suspect that will occur in the near future, perhaps as it is more able to accurately sync with your body? But that seems more of an extension of the fit-bit honestly. I feel like the blue-tooth is a more natural extension of the phone than the watch, I don't see the watch as ever being a viable communication method.
DeleteI agree with Jared completely. I think that the idea of wearable technology is still very new to our society, and provides no real benefits that smartphones and other modern-day technology already provides. But over time, I can see the possibility of wearable tech, AR tech, and VR tech to be very existent and developed.
ReplyDeleteI have to confess -- I've been wearing a FitBit for a couple of years, and I appreciate what it offers. It gives me an achievable goal (10K steps) to work toward each day, and it's fun to know how far I've walked (and how much elevation change) on bigger hikes, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt also serves the purpose of a watch. I haven't jumped on the smart-watch bandwagon yet thought -- mostly because they are expensive. I also wish that fitbits looked more classy, and less like cheap plastic toys. I also turned off the "heart-rate monitoring" feature of my fitbit, because sending that quasi-medical data to FitBit, Inc. felt a bit too invasive (and I think it drains battery life).
A big reason for Google Glass's failure was that people felt their privacy was violated by glass-wearers, and had this nasty habit of assaulting them. As such, Google Glass-users tended to feel unsafe wearing the product. I suspect that any other wearable technology would have a similar reception unless it was explicitly clear that the device cannot record video, or that the device can only record when clearly visible (like a phone or camcorder)
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that we avoid wearable technology, but we welcome AI such as Echo and Google Home. We know that they collect our data, and maybe our phone does too. If our data already out there and big tech company use it for their gain, it would be good for us to just come forth and use it ourselves as well. Of course it still cannot record out thought that we not speak out loud but a phone app that can query my spoken data would be similar to LIZZY.
ReplyDeleteI think the main issue right now is that this tech can be clunky. Think of computers 50 years ago: taking up entire buildings and now they fit in our pockets. With enough engineering and pioneers in the field I think that this technology will eventually come to light and find it's place in everyday life, but until then, only the ambitious few will use it.
ReplyDeleteI think it's just our human psyche: we are scared of wearable AI because we can feel it on us and we are constantly reminded by them, but we are fine with other AI like Echo because we just forget it's even there. Even though we know that they can both basically violate our privacy, we are just more aware of the ones we have on us.
ReplyDeleteThere is something about augmenting our human body that is unsettling to me. It brings up worries of security, social classes, and unchecked power. It might be possible for someone to hack into your technology and mess with it, or steal your data. It could also impact the way crimes are committed or prevented.
ReplyDeleteAs a proponent of transhumanism, I fully welcome our robot AI overlords around my wrist, onto my brain, and into my heart. I think a lot of the market failure for wearable tech comes from people not understanding how to work them; at the moment it's way easier for a lot of people to put on an old-fashioned watch. It just works! We'll get there though, especially as older generations become more tech-savvy.
ReplyDelete