Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Feb 2013 11:40 UTC
Permalink for comment 553260
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-22
We all find advertising useful sometimes both as receivers of ads and as purveyors of ads. But I do think some things are probably best not run by advertising companies, and this sort of wearable device might be such an example.
I think the police are necessary and useful but I wouldn't be happy if they ran the kindergartens, I think religious institutions have their place but I wouldn't want them to control the ministry of culture, I think political parties are essential to democracy but they shouldn't decide the verdict in court cases. etc etc.
If a company, such as Google, makes all it's money from advertising then that has an effect on what it does and how it does it. A non-advertising company would probably do a lot of things differently than Google does them. I think it would be silly to argue otherwise.
Maybe the fact that Google Glass is a product of an advertising company will have no impact on the end user experience. On the other hand it might, and that impact may have negative consequences for end users.
I would of thought it should be possible to raise such matters, even occasionally in a caustic and satirical fashion, without such concerns being condemned out of hand.
Just saying.