There’s a ridiculous article written by Greg Roberts on ReadWrite entitled “Google Glass vs. Apple iWatch: How Do They Compare?”:
Sure, the battle is a little lopsided in that Google Glass is a real product, albeit still for developers only, while iWatch remains only speculation. But let’s assume that both will be real products soon enough and look at their individual strengths and weaknesses.
Really? You’re comparing a product that’s still not available to consumers to one that doesn’t even exist? It’s as though the article was written just as an excuse to have something negative published about Apple, especially as Greg comes to the conclusion that Google Glass is the better of the two devices.
Will those potential benefits outweigh the in-your-face social and fashion issue that might make people hesitant to wear Google Glass, especially in public?
Maybe, especially if Google can successfully position the product as a coveted fashion item that transcends tech. If that happens, the iWatch will be nothing but an afterthought.
Worse still, there’s no balance in the reporting (well, as balanced as you can get when dealing with a so-far fictional product). The iWatch gets two short paragraphs (one of them describing the history of the wristwatch), the rest of the article goes on about Google Glass. If I were writing a piece on a non-existent piece of technology, I’d want to write about it’s perpetual motion-powered battery and holographic interface.
Greg Roberts is credited for being co-founder of dSky9, a company that specialises in writing apps for wearable smart-glass tech. The site’s background image? Google Glass. It seems to make sense now that the article is quite focused on the merits of Google Glass and smart-glass wearable tech over something like a smartwatch.
I’m kind of shocked ReadWrite would run this piece, they should know better.
My favourite comment so far was from atimoshenko:
Next up on ReadWrite: Cold Fusion vs. Perpetual Motion. Which is better?