I’ve been having a back and forth with my boss the past couple of days about Google Glass and whether it’ll be the 2010′s version of the pet rock or the next iPad. The answer is probably somewhere in between, but its place in tech history aside,  Glass so far seems like a product that had to be made. It addresses needs and problems consumers have had since the dawn of mobile connectivity, most notably how to easily and quickly get to information and features while in transit.  Think about it, navigation, taking photos, and video on the fly using a phone is a fine, but not the most optimal experience.  Sure, there’s a little bit of futurism for future’s sake, but as we get beyond Google’s stock applications and versions 2.0 and beyond gain gesture, facial, and even eye tracking interface, these glasses are going be interesting.

Video: It’s unclear to me how watching video will work. Can you watch Breaking Bad on Netflix while walking around the mall? Is that something people even want to do? Yes, it is.

Mobile Ads: Marketers are chomping at the bit to serve up ads directly to consumers’ eyeballs.  Contextual, intrusive, targeted Geico ads.

Gaming: I think there are some interesting places for gaming to go with Glass.  We’ve gotten a taste of it in some of the augmented reality games  for tablets and phones, but in smart glasses, developers have a whole new set of tools to work with.

Interface: My biggest question.  Right now it appears voice is the main interface.  Gesture seems like a logical next step, using your hands to swipe to new web pages or messages, to advance videos, or even position the “screen” from one side of the periphery to another.  There’s eye tracking now as well from companies like Tobii that can make these things REALLY futuristic.  I should probably couch this by saying “space permitting”- the Glass is compact if nothing else.

Regulatory: Dun dun dun….This is the government’s worst nightmare.  Privacy (stealthily recording people without their knowledge) and distracted driving are two that come to mind.  I also have to admit that when I heard about Project Glass, I immediately thought of how the Opti-Grab worked out for Navin in The Jerk.  I’m guessing Google has tested this thing thoroughly, but who knows if having information right in front of your eye has any detrimental effects.

If nothing else, Glass signifies the wearables movement, at least for now, is real. We are going to see more smart objects for our bodies in the near term, not fewer.

Image from WashingtonPost.com

we will have live television, catch-up television, on-demand, and a set of applications.

A couple observations on this.  First, I think Intel can bring a fresh take on the set-top-box, design-wise as well from a ‘blurring the line between PC and TV’ perspective.  At the 2013 International CES, Samsung announced their ES8000 would feature a dual core CPU—I suspect Intel’s new box will offer similar computing power to run apps and other ‘post pc’ type activities, something more than just Angry Birds.

There’s also this camera. I had a good conversation with a reporter from Tech News Daily about Intel’s device and was only quoted as saying “People are freaked out about the camera”. That’s overstating it a bit, but I think there will be some hesitance. They’ve marketed it as a way connect socially and serve up customized content (read: ads). I think the camera is more effectively positioned as a way to add Kinect type features- which makes this device even more interesting.  So, I’m hoping it’s not just a simple camera.

I’m unsure about the ‘service’ part of this.  Intel’s platform will need to offer more than just Netflix and Amazon’s Video Service.  They hinted at a la carte TV (I think the term was offering choice) which I’m skeptical of, so we’ll see what inroads they’ve made with the networks and studios. It’s hard to read much into that part of the announcement.

I think we’ve slept on what Intel can bring to the TV.  Does this prompt Apple to take any action? Probably not. At the least, this is another sign companies that traditionally are not in the TV or content business are taking a hard look at what they can do to change the way we watch and pay for programming.

Image from http://megumisekine.blogspot.com

Though it’s ruffled some feathers on Twitter and elsewhere, I’m enjoying the dialogue Jamelle Bouie’s recent column on race, gender, and technology reporting has sprouted.  For sure it’s an uncomfortable topic to discuss, but to ignore it would be uncharacteristic of our highly curious and analytical industry.  The tough thing is there are no obvious reasons or remedies for fixing a lack of representation in a specific industry.  On one hand, there is something to the idea that in many of our communities, the impact of “technology” is much less than other fields like sports or the arts.  On the other, it’s hard to insist the typical societal barriers facing people of color are not preventing some from working in the field.  It’s likely some combination of both.

I spend roughly 80 percent of my workday learning about technology products- how they work today, how they once worked, the companies that pioneered them, the names and acronyms of their components- because it is essential to establishing my credibility as an analyst.  Like some who cover the industry, I didn’t possess much of this knowledge prior to my work as a tech analyst.  I’m not an engineer or a programmer and I didn’t grow up hacking my Commodore 64.  I was a jock- an interest patently unsuited for a career in technology.  My cultural pre-disposition dictated this (though I was a willing participant) instead of learning Basic or DOS.  My family owned a Tandy TRS-80 back in the day, so I had the option. I just chose to shoot baskets out front instead because that’s what all my friends were doing.  An interest, some aptitude, and the hustle got me to where I am today.

This industry of ours is not without its faults, but I would not consider racism or any kind of superficial prejudice one of them (and Jamelle goes out of his way to say this).  I wouldn’t call it a total meritocracy existing in a post-racial world, but I would say covering and speaking about technology is mostly about what you know, not who you are.  To make a lame comparison, Luke Russert could not just wake up one day and be the editor of Engadget because his father once was.  Jaden Smith couldn’t host TWIT just because his dad is Leo Laporte.

If you agree that technology is becoming a larger, more mainstream part of our culture (see the title of this blog) and you’re a publication that seeks to expand its reach I think you owe your readers journalists and analysts who view the industry from different vantage points.  No, opinions on things like Windows 8 aren’t going to differ much, but you’re likely to get some different product reviews, impressions of usage scenarios, and viewpoints on apps if you have a more diverse group of people writing for you.  And in the age of social media, your contributors become personalities advocating your brand.  I like the writing of The Verge’s Ross Miller, but I really appreciate the wacky personality and Twitter stylings of @OhNoRosco.

The publication that makes a push for greater diversity in their newsroom, not for mere appearances or gimmick or to throw the proverbial bone, but as a way to reflect the growing views and interests of a more technology literate society stands to distinguish itself from the field. #ImJustSayin

Image courtesy of http://www.metmuseum.org

I appeared on CNBC’s Closing Bell to talk about Cyber Monday.  Just a quick hit from me, but a nice segment.

Steve Jobs reportedly said consumers didn’t want 7 inch tablets.  Or something to that effect.  I’m going to go ahead and remind the Internet that I’m on record as being down with 7 inch as a form factor.  My iPad 2 is great, but I often feel like it’s too big. Portable but not necessarily pocketable.

I’d never hold Apple to Jobs’ proclamation, but as we head into Wednesday’s purported announcement of a 7.8 inch-ish iPad, I’m wondering what the impetus is.  Certainly Apple’s model, mostly with the iPod, has been to innovate the line, start with one core model and come later with permutations that target a different market. I get it.

Though I love The Verge and Paul Miller, I’ve resisted reading this “Offline” series. I’m sure it’s a great perspective on unplugging, but I think it felt a little too fantasy for me to spend my precious time reading. Not that I think my time is that precious, but other people do.  I do, however, have a new found appreciation for the series and might go back and read it, because little did I know I’d be thrown into an offline situation this weekend myself.

On holiday for Labor Day weekend, my family composed of my wife, 3 year old son and 5 month old daughter hit the road to Nellysford, Virginia to visit my parents-in-law.  A remote area of Virginia about 20 minutes from a ski resort nobody really visits, it’s also a place where AT&T, Verizon, and just about every other network carrier of note has decided a cell tower isn’t worth the investment because our phones don’t work.

This is nothing new for us- our phones never work in Nellysford, but we typically get by using my in laws VOIP line for calls, and iMessage to text other iPhone owners over WiFi. Oh WiFi. My link to the outside world when stuck in Central Virginia. So when I arrived at this ski resort during summer’s final send off (with an infant, a toddler, my in-laws, and a wife who tires very quickly of me) with no effing WiFi and no cell service, I nearly shat the proverbial brick.

What the hell am i supposed to do out in the country with no way to communicate with the outside world? No stream of unsatisfying holiday technology news to scoff at? No Instagram updates. No, oh god, no Twitter? How will I know how many followers @invisibleobama is up to? Is that even happening anymore?

It gets better. A day into this nightmare, the AC went out. Now We’re really living like Virginia colonialists but with less yellow fever.

A funny thing happened on my way through this weekend though, I gained a greater appreciation for things that don’t happen on a screen. We visited a vineyard and had a great time even though it rained. We went to the pool. I took my wife out to dinner. I didn’t need social media (admittedly I’m only a moderate Facebooker at best) because I was too busy being social.  We read THE NEWSPAPER to get news (it was yesterdays news, but still). It was just like camping, except with more Nick Jr because it seemed like everyone watched twice as much TV to compensate.

I guess what I’m getting at is I don’t care about unplugging. Being offline doesn’t make you a man and there’s nothing noble in it.  It’s probably not for me.  But it does refocus you to the real events going on in your life. We were always going to the pool this weekend. I was going to take my wife to dinner with or without Foursquare’s help.  But without access, I put my digital life on hold. TechBarnold took a vacation and I was just Ben for a while.

A few months ago, the tech world was feeling pretty confident Apple would put out a TV late in 2012.  With Apple meeting with network heads, and a plant in Brazil supposedly ramping up panel production, it was a sure thing.

Today Zach Epstein at BGR reports on a note from Mark Moskowitz at JP Morgan that the firm does not believe a TV will be released from Apple any time before 2014 and that Apple is more likely to add more features to the Apple TV in the short term.

This makes a lot of sense given the current harshness of the TV market.  While Apple could definitely differentiate itself in flat panels, the category is showing all the signs of pre-mature maturity.  Amid falling ASPs, prices are fairly inelastic in the minds of consumers and everyone wants the biggest screen possible at the lowest price.  While Apple is somewhat insulated from discussions of brand, consumers are buying less and less on brand, showing flat panels may be sliding into commodity-ville. Features like LED and voice/motion control might help stem some of this, differentiating the bottom of the market from the top, but they aren’t likely to be game changers.

Obviously, Apple won’t make as much money from an updated Apple TV like they would from a whole television. But reading the BGR column got me thinking- couldn’t you just add these features into a connected set-top-box without making the TV? Siri, motion control, iOS, Apps.  Use iOS devices as more feature laden controlers.  Concentrate on the money making part (the box and content) and leave the loss leader (the TV) to someone else.

Image courtesy of Decalator

Oh, and as GigaOm points out, some back of the envelope calculations show the Nook business is worth more than Barnes & Noble itself.

Photo via Slashgear

My question is this- what value does this offer? I don’t see ESPN3 subscribers flocking to Facebook just so they can watch the games and share what they are watching with their friend group. Are current subscribers more likely to watch through Facebook than through, say, the ESPN3 website or the even better and more convenient Watch ESPN App? I don’t think so. It sounds like adding Facebook just to add it, perhaps to superficially attach ESPN’s name to Facebook.

My hope upon seeing this news was that the games broadcast to through Facebook would appeal to a different audience than the typical ESPN3 subscriber. Perhaps monetized by subscriptions using Facebook credits or specialized advertising aimed at FB users. It’s certain to tie in with college alumni and fan groups on Facebook which is a great idea, but how much sense does it make to divert your audience away from your website?

People often say “Facebook is becoming the Internet”. I think for many, it is. I’m not sure I want my entire online experience to be that color blue.