You may or may not like him, but Jaron Lanier is right in that interview: <i>It is dangerous that corporations control the data of devices you are supposed to wear.</i><p>Scoble doesn't seem to care about that.
This doesn't seem like much of a grilling because it's essentially coming from Paxman's naive/populist viewpoint rather than direct experience or deep thought. Jaron does provide some of those perspectives, but carefully distinguishes between the <i>device's</i> attributes and <i>Google's</i> attributes - the former being relatively benign and the latter being potentially evil or manipulative or at the very least commercial. I would like to see a longer, unmediated conversation between the two techies, because it seems like the their excitement and resentment come from the potential of the technology more than its current implementation. Such a conversation could actually influence development toward one kind of Glass future or another.<p>The comments about narcissism are interesting for the public but are ultimately banal and non-specific to this particular technology. The related questions about privacy and how the technology further eliminates barriers between public and private life, however, could use a lot more popular discussion...
Total waste of time.<p>Lanier is obnoxious and comes off as a total clown.
Paxman is not really interested in the topic.
Scoble is just a Glasshole.<p>I'd like my 10 minutes back.
I found the host obnoxious, personally, and the show was from the outset staged as a Fox style take-down: Scoble is "self-obsessed" (this "narcissism" angle was a recurring theme in this. Yet another discussion about Scoble taking a picture of himself in the shower...in a series of blog posts where he was talking about integrating Google Glass into his life) because he uses the device for biometrics, leveraging technology for better health insights? I'd say as a 48 year old male he's making a smart decision.<p>Another irritating aspect to every one of these discussions is the argument that Google is an advertising company so therefore everything they do is and will always be about advertising. While Google has some golden handcuffs of advertising dropping a lot of cash in their coffers (which their competitors have as well, as an aside, to varying success. Microsoft has an ad branch. Apple has an ad branch), they have endlessly been demonstrating that they are trying to build secondary businesses.<p>The raw cynicism to discard an entire computing experience is not useful.
Real journalists put people on the spot.<p>Their (the subjects) feelings dont matter. Go watch some 60 minutes Mike Wallace interviews.<p>If they can charm their way through the interview they win. If they cant well then we can all think about that.<p>But dont for one second think that a real journalists ideal should be to play host to technology bozos.<p>If being polite were a journalistic trait Nixon would still be in office.