With new technology coming to the public, it is important to remember that the product is not just a device to be sold but rather an extraordinary leap into the future.
Bring on the Glass!
In Josh Lowensohn’s article, “Google Glass now on sale to all in US, but still in beta” the man talks...
Capitalism: Google Glass just another Product Google glass is innovative, but it can never be more than a product in a capitalistic system. Blogger optimistic about Google Glass future In her blog post about the new phase of testing of Google Glass, blogger generationdigital says that we should look as Glass as more than just a product. It is, as she says, “our future” (generationdigital). Glass is certainly impressive. Who wouldn’t want to experience augmented reality? Glass would also allow people to scan QR codes, use social media, and take photographs, all with ease. As technology guru Pamela Lund says, we not “have more power to change the world than ever before” with technologies like Glass(Lund 1). Generationdigital is right to point out that the possibilities for Glass are limited only by our imaginations. But I imagine something different for the future of Glass. Negative effects of new device I agree with generationdigital and Pamela Lund that owning Glass can improve one’s quality of life. And this is the problem. Glass is, as of right now only being sold in the US, and only to consumers who can afford its $1,500 price tag. This means that not everyone can experience the fantasy that generationdigital describes Glass to be. Actually, it seems that a very small proportion of the population will be able to afford Glass. Google profit-driven Generationdigital’s account of the new phase of Glass releases is positive. But we can’t trade positivity for reality. We live in a world where, as she notes “there is profit to be made from such a device” (generationdigital). Obviously, Google will be making a huge profit from sales of Google glass, and the device will probably remain very expensive for a long time. This means that generationdigital’s urging to see Glass as more than a product is unrealistic. It is something that a major company will profit hugely from. It is something that some people can afford, and others can’t. In other words, it is a product. Capitalism limits growth Products make profit. And profit rules in a capitalistic society. So, instead of creating what Clay Shirky calls “civic value” (172) by making Glass affordable to a variety of people with a variety of ideas to change the world for the better, Google put a high price tag on its newest product. This means that Google Glass will not be a tool for creating civic value. It will be a novelty for people with enough money to buy it. I’m all for a positive outlook, but capitalism bars the kind of optimism that generationdigital has about Glass. It is an innovative product that has a lot of potential and could be used for good. Glass still a product
And in a capitalistic society, this aspect of Glass is what sticks out. It is the factor that will decide whether it will be used to create civic value, or as a toy to help people improve their golf game and connect with their friends. This is not an attack on Glass, but an attack on the system in which it was created and is being sold. And this “attack,” as Robert McChesney points out, is not unwarranted. "If capitalism is as great as its defenders claim, it can survive and even prosper by being subjected to criticism, examination, and open debate. And if it cannot triumph after a round in the hot seat, this becomes a conversation that was long overdue" (McChesney). Works Cited Generationdigital. "Google Glass More than a Product, It Is the Future." Web log post. Tumblr. N.p., 14 May 2014. Web. 14 May 2014. Lund, Pamela. Massively Networked: How the Convergence of Social Media and Technology Is Changing Your Life. San Francisco: PLI Media, 2011. Print. McChesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect. New York: New, 2013. Print. Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print.




















