FACTORES DEL MICRO ENTORNO

I can’t predict the future, but I can give one, hopefully plausible, sketch of what Google Glass might become in the far future, say 5 years from now. A first question raised by such a sketch, is whether we will still be using wearable computers in that

54

year. Have we moved beyond that, or did wearable computers stop being used before that time?

To answer this question I rely on some insights from the academic field of innovation studies. More specifically, the strategic niche management (SNM) approach as it is presented by Schot and Geels (2008). Basically, early work on this approach contends that emerging technologies develop in technological niches which the authors define as “protected spaces that allow nurturing and experimentation with the co-evolution of technology, user practices, and regulatory structures”(p. 538). Examples of such protected spaces may be conference demonstrations, or trial projects in university hospitals with emerging health care technologies. Later work, refined this notion of a technological niche in two ways. Namely, by distinguishing technological niches from market niches – i.e. “niches in which technology design and user demands have become stabilised”(p. 539), and secondly by arguing that technological niches are strongly associated with “local projects” with “ initially diffuse, broad, and unstable” designs, use practices, and de-alignment with existing laws and regulations(pp. 543,

emph. Mine), while market niches are strongly associated with a more global level and

“more stable shared rules” such as “dominant designs,” alignment with existing laws, and specific use practices(ibid). After one or more market niches have emerged, these market niches may either overthrow, or partly “reconfigure” what the authors call a socio-technological regime (i.e. the dominant technology in a particular market, together with its use practices and regulations)(cf. , p. 547).

So how do these insights help us to say something about the possibility of a far-future edition of Google Glass? First of all, I think it is fair to say that the first few market niches for Google Glass have started to emerge. For both Wearable Intelligence Inc. and Augmedix Inc. (see section 2.3.2.3) deliver medical Glassware that underwent user tests, complies with the American medical privacy regulations, and have recently been “authorized” by Google to deliver enterprise Glassware through its ‘Glass at Work’ program(Google, 2014g). The question is now what will happen within this market niche, and which socio-technical regime they aim to overthrow or reconfigure. Within this market niche these startup companies compete, and the recent inclusion of Wearable Intelligence, Inc and Augmedix Inc. Into the Glass at Work program, might give them a competitive advantage over a company like Pristine, Inc. That has not been included in this program(see section 2.3.2.3). With regard to socio-technical regimes I expect that a wearable computer like Google Glass will mainly reconfigure existing regimes. For example, even though Wearable Intelligence’s Informant is able to show CT scans and other patient data on the Glass display, CT scans and other types of medical images may still require the larger screen of a tablet or regular LCD monitor to be studied closely(cf. Wearable Intelligence Inc., 2014b, t. 2:05-2:20). Therefore, even though keyboards, desktop computers, mouses, and other hardware may disappear from a medical doctors examination room, tablets and monitors may still remain for at least the coming years. Additionally, at a more general level, consultancy firms Deloitte and IHS expect the wearable computing market to grow in the coming years, especially in the “smart glasses” segment(IHS, 2013; P. Lee & Stewart, 2014, pp. 10-12). They base these claims on a great number of interviews with market analysts, clients, and consumers(P. Lee & Stewart, 2014, p. 3), or on forecasted scenarios(IHS, 2013), respectively. Based on these observations, I conclude that it seems at least plausible that wearable computers are here to stay and plausibly have

become an established technology in five years time for at least some medical professional practices(P. Lee & Stewart, 2014, pp. 12, 20-22; cf. Hoogma et. Al. (2002) as quoted by Schot & Geels, 2008, pp. 544-545).

Another question raised by this conclusion that wearables are here to stay is what Google Glass might look like by 2019. I do not expect that Google Glass in its current spectacles-like form-factor has been replaced entirely by a contact lens. As I stated previously (see section 2.3.1), such a lens still requires a lot of research, investments, and regulatory work, to reach the level of functionality that Google Glass currently has. Nonetheless, I would not be surprised if such a contact lens would be used as a medical sensor by that time, and possibly transmits its measurements wirelessly to the user’s nearby smart glasses. Furthermore, I expect Glass to have been adopted by more Europeans in 2019, as its speech recognition features have improved, and laws regulating wearable computers have been established (see section 2.4.1). Finally, an eye tracker may be included55 as a way to interact with Glass (see section 2.3.2.2), given Google’s current experiments with the infrared light sensor that’s able to pick up winks(ibid), and more recently eye glances at the screen(Google Glass, 2014c).

Even though I realise the above claims offer far from a complete picture of what Glass might look like in 2019, I hope they offer at least a glimpse, or a rough, but hopefully realistic, sketch of where Glass may be heading in the coming years. For now, I suggest we return to the current prototypical state of Google Glass, and start to explore some of its features from a philosophical point of view. More specifically, in the next and third chapter we will explore the implications of Glass’ voice recognition and gesture recognition features for postphenomenology, while the fourth chapter will focus on the way augmented reality applications for Google Glass might influence the way we interpret our world. Let’s now leave our fact-checking efforts, and start philosophising.

55

Additionally I base this claim on the fact that Brandyn White’s curriculum vitae states that he will be a hybrid software engineering (SWE), and user interface (UI) / user experience (UX) intern at Google [x] in the summer of 2014(White, 2014a). White is the PhD student who has been experimenting with eye-tracking on Google Glass (see section 2.3.2.2).

Chapter 3 – Human-Computer Interaction for Google