Google Glass banned from Google’s shareholder meeting

I cannot make this shit up people.



  • http://globallyattuned.com/ Monty Wuggy

    I’m amused by your attempt to ridicule Google. This isn’t funny, or hypocritical. Use of the aforementioned product at a shareholder meeting is inappropriate and I’m not surprised they’re opposed to the idea of recording their meeting.

    You think Tim Cook wants someone availing of Facetime during a private meeting? Would that be hypocritical? Hmm, I surmise you’d think not.

    • khakionion

      Tim Cook would not ban iPhones during a private meeting.

      • http://globallyattuned.com/ Monty Wuggy

        Where did I state otherwise? I said he’d prohibit the use of something that could expose their secrets.

        • khakionion

          You didn’t state otherwise and even if you had, that’s not the point. The point is that it’s hypocritical that Google would ban their own product at their own shareholder meeting.

          • http://globallyattuned.com/ Monty Wuggy

            Shareholder meetings are invariably private, so there is no “irony” in their decision to omit glass from the meetings.

            This isn’t ironic or hypocritical, just like it wouldn’t be if Cook didn’t want fellow confidants using facetime at a private meeting.

          • khakionion

            You are confused. “Using FaceTime” is not analogous to “wearing Glass.” That’s what makes your comparison fail: wearing the device–at all–was banned, regardless of whether it was being used.

          • http://globallyattuned.com/ Monty Wuggy

            My comparison is not invalid. The problem with Glass is, it’s not obvious when someone is making a recording thus jeopardising secrecy. It’s hard to conceal the iPhone whilst recording a video.

          • Hmph.

            It’s like you’ve distilled exactly what makes Glass so ridiculous. Well done!

          • Sebastian Paul

            This is different in a very obvious way.

            First, no one would ever think that Steve Jobs left his iPhone at the door during any kind of meeting – but Sergey Brin will have to take of his Google Glass.

            Second, this shows the big difference in those products, because an iPhone and Facetime are product that CAN become creepy and problematic for privacy, while Google Glass IS creepy and problematic for privacy.

            Even Google is afraid of their own product and has no grip on how to make it not a privacy concern (For beginners: Not adding a red LED which turns on during recording is so incredibly stupid)

            This news is in the same league of bitter irony like the death of the Segway CEO by Segway accident.

        • quietstorms

          I don’t know what Cook what do but Jobs was brazen enough to do it.

          Your initial point still holds no value.

          • Guest

            Neither do any of your comments, since everyone else clearly understands what he was saying.

            And for the record, Apple DOES ban the use of recording devices at their shareholders meeting.

      • Tvaddic

        But he did, you can’t take recording devices, like iPhones, to the shareholder meetings. As it is stated right before the bullets.

        http://bit.ly/11xX2nO

        • http://tewha.net/ Steven Fisher

          Curious what Apple did, exactly. Collect them on entry? Stop & eject if someone pulled one out?

          • Guest

            I don’t know what either company did, but considering all recording devices are banned, people weren’t dumb enough to at least get caught using these devices.

          • khakionion

            Tvaddic doesn’t know, because s/he has never actually attended an Apple shareholder meeting. “Recording devices” is the language used, not “iPhones.” People have their iOS devices out at Apple’s shareholder meetings, they are not banned.

          • Tvaddic

            According to the rules they are, it just isn’t enforced. They don’t care about you having the device necessarily, they just don’t want you taking pictures.

          • richard451

            I have attended the meetings at Apple and the verbiage used there is EXACTLY the same as the verbiage used for Google. (read the article again)

          • marv08

            I have not been to the meeting this year, but it seems they are not collecting anything. No idea how people could provide live coverage otherwise (see e.g. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100501280 ).

            Last year they only told us that picture taking, video and audio recording are not allowed. There were plenty people with iPhones and iPads.

          • http://tewha.net/ Steven Fisher

            So, basically, Jim’s completely right here. Google is banning Glass. It’s absurd, because they do more than just record.

      • lucascott

        Actually he might. Depends on the meeting.

        Given that I’ve heard stories of folks being fired and walked out thug style for taking photos of the back rooms in a store, I would not be shocked if Tim barred cameras etc.

        Many companies have rules about no recording devices at shareholder meets so if anything Google is in the right to say this includes google Glass

        • khakionion

          Taking photos in the back rooms of a store is a firing offense. Possessing an iPhone in the back room of the store is not. Seriously, is this so difficult?

      • richard451

        iPhones (and any other phones) are banned at Apple shareholder meetings just as they are banned at Google shareholders meetings. It’s an SEC violation that I doubt Cook or Brin would want to risk fines over. That said, it is never enforced, just like there will be Glass at the Google meeting.

    • Scruff0

      A quote from Eric Scmidt might help here -

      “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

      • http://globallyattuned.com/ Monty Wuggy

        Quote mining. Ah, how surprising. Do you have a propensity to misinterpret quotes? By the way, just for the record I’m an Apple enthusiast. I love what they’ve contributed to the world. What I’m averse to is the unfair criticism directed at Google, a company which has also contributed a plethora of good to this world :-)

        • Scruff0

          Google has done some amazing stuff, and continues to do so. I have a great deal of respect for the company, as I do Apple and Microsoft.

          I find it ironic how a public figure can go on record about his stance on the public privacy issues (children should change their name when theyre 18, maybe you should move house, et al.) and yet disallow glass due to privacy concerns.

          And how on earth do you misinterpret that quote? It’s pretty clear.

          • http://globallyattuned.com/ Monty Wuggy

            I never claimed I endorsed the quote. I don’t concur with a lot of Schimt’s views regarding privacy.

            I’m simply saying there is no discrepancy between his view on privacy and wanting to protect classified information which if released could be detrimental to the company.

          • Scruff0

            So demand access to all other folks data, but hide your own? Shiny. What about if the release of my personal data is detrimental to me financially and personally? Aren’t US companies considered to be a corporate personhood by tax law?

          • http://globallyattuned.com/ Monty Wuggy

            That’s another topic entirely and one I’d probably concur with you about.

            In this case however, the derision being aimed at Google is unwarranted.

    • social_tom

      Google dismisses privacy concerns about use of Glass in THE PUBLIC BATHROOM, but not in the boardroom.

      Let’s hope all of the meeting is taped and leaks as soon as possible.

      • http://globallyattuned.com/ Monty Wuggy

        And Google is silly for dismissing such concerns just like the people ridiculing them for wanting to keep classified information secretive.

      • Scruff0

        So peeing in the boardroom must be extra private :-)

  • dtj

    Aren’t shareholder meetings essentially public, for a publicly held company? It’s not like there is some vetting system for people going to shareholder meetings.

    It is pretty ironic.

    • Tvaddic

      I think part of the fear is people getting to know the identity of some of the shareholders.

  • Tvaddic

    You aren’t allowed to take recording devices to shareholder meetings, Android and Motorola phones are banned from this. And with this logic we should freak out because you can’t take iPhones to Apple shareholder meetings.

    • khakionion

      Please stop saying this, it’s not accurate.

      • Tvaddic

        Unless they say you can’t use recording devices ,except iPhones this is accurate.

  • Jack

    Basically: people wearing Glass cannot be trusted. I can at least trust you’ll keep your Android phone in your pocket and not break the rules but Glass is too invasive to use around any kind of private matter.

  • http://www.thegraphicmac.com/ JimD

    For the most part (not all), this entire comment thread is filled with douchenozzles all claiming to have the biggest e-penis.

  • dtj

    They don’t want actual shareholders to realize just how douchey that users of their new up and coming technology will be by using the product. ‘Segway for the face’ indeed.

  • SiliconValleyTech

    This is great, your one liner had me and my coworkers busting up in the office after a long day. Cheers.

  • Jeff Slater

    Geez, talk about hypocritical. “It’s okay if we rape everyone else’s privacy with our product, just not our own, kthx.”

  • Sigivald

    Top of that article now: Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with new reporting. Google did not ban Google Glass at the shareholder meeting, according to a source, though it banned any recording of the proceedings.

    So, while you couldn’t make it up, someone did.

    Turns out in this Google is just like everyone else’s shareholder meetings: no recordings.

    Google are jerks, but they’re jerks like everyone else, not magic special jerks.