Google Glass is fascinating. It seems to be a case of life imitating science fiction. This wearable computer allows users to take pictures or record video through the lens of their glasses with a simple voice command.

Nearly everything is recorded and posted online already, so Google Glass is simply the next step. Yet the all-seeing product raises serious questions about privacy.

The New York Times reports that the West Virginia state legislature is about to consider a bill to prohibit use of the glasses while driving. Private establishments are also being proactive: Some Las Vegas casinos and a bar in Seattle have announced Google Glass bans.

In recent years we’ve become accustomed to hidden cameras: From hood-mounted police cameras that captured Reese Witherspoon’s recent arrest to the retail store surveillance cameras that provided images of the suspected Boston Marathon bombers.

Google Glass can go places that static cameras and cop cams can’t.

That’s troubling. Yet we all know that innovation is hard to halt.

Besides, this technology will no doubt be embraced by members of the Facebook Generation who have eagerly given up much of their privacy in exchange for instant online gratification.

Google Glass is coming. Get ready for your close-up.

It looks like “House of Cards” has paid off for Netflix.

The streaming service added 2 million subscribers with that ground-breaking political series that stars Kevin Spacey.  Quite a leap from the days when Netflix was being outflanked by its competition.

It also marks a change in how Netflix will be perceived. Its brand previously was about a business model. Now its content will draw customers.

This has happened before.

Remember when TLC was The Learning Channel? Now it features shows such as “The World’s Worst Tattoos,” which are hardly educational.  Broader offerings spurred the network to simply rebrand itself as TLC.

And AMC, which a few years ago was known for airing seemingly non-stop “Die Hard” movies, now pulls in massive viewership with its gritty series lineups that include “The Walking Dead” and “Breaking Bad.” As a result, AMC’s tagline is  “Something More.”

In each instance, content drove the brand.  With “House of Cards” and other promising shows in production, look for Netflix’s brand to transform into something new.

The talk in our office lately has centered on how the streaming video industry will eventually shake out. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon and many others are already available. Also in the mix are iTunes and cable on-demand channels.

Choices are a good thing for consumers. Unfortunately, there is little difference in content among the current providers. For example, most of what’s streaming on Amazon Prime is also available on Netflix.

Now we learn that Amazon is about to unveil a TV box that basically does the same thing as Apple TV, only with Amazon content. This announcement comes just days after Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote an exhaustive essay that predicted television will become less about channels and more about apps.

If he’s correct, the war will be fought over content, not technology or even business model. Netflix, coming off an impressive earnings report, has the best model – subscription – but too much of its content is available elsewhere.

It won’t be long before everything will be available via streaming. Question is, which provider will dominate?

Twitter just rolled out its new baby, Twitter #music. It’s an app that, with a few tweaks, could be revolutionary.

But those tweaks are important and ought to happen soon.

Here’s how #music works: It exposes users to new musicians who can be easily followed on Twitter. Users build a musical interest base that prompts suggestions for them. The app also allows users to listen to full tracks that are integrated with Spotify and iTunes. Of course, users can also tweet songs to their followers. This is Twitter, after all.

The application features a quartet of pages: Popular, Emerging, Suggested, and #NowPlaying. These categories are carefully selected, but there’s no way to search genres within the categories. That’s a huge drawback. Each page lists more than 100 artists without any indicator of style.

Users who are accustomed to genre searches on iTunes will grow weary of the tedious process needed to find music they enjoy on #music.

There’s another element to #music worth considering: One of its purposes is to attract more Twitter users. But Alexis Kleinman of the Huffington Post correctly reports that most Twitter followers are young and older folks are unlikely to be drawn into the Twitter world in pursuit of music.

“Twitter is likely trying to appeal to a new audience that hasn’t joined the network yet,” she wrote. “Twitter users are, in general, young. Around 27 percent of people aged 18 to 29 use Twitter, while only 10 percent of people 50 to 64 are Twitter users.”

Even so, Twitter #music needs major changes to be useful even to a young audience. It’s not too late to make those adjustments, but Twitter should hurry.

First the rumor mill said it would come from Apple or Google. Now, apparently, it’s Microsoft that will be first with a smart watch.

What kind of impact will a smart watch have? It might be a collective shrug because most see watches as fashion, rather than being excited about its technology. Overcoming that perception is the biggest hurdle for smart watch manufacturers.

Remember the Casio calculator watch, or even the Casio wrist remote controller? Those watches never had mass appeal because being able to calculate numbers or control the TV with your watch was not all that exciting. In fact, keeping time – with cell phones and computers and clocks all around us – isn’t either.

For a smart watch to be successful, it has to overcome the existing perception that watches are dumb technology and almost strictly fashion. The fact that Apple, Google and Microsoft are all strong brands means they have the initial interest of consumers. But, considering that we already have smart phones, that won’t entirely resolve the big question.

Who needs a smart watch?

Bad news for PC makers, especially the ones that carry Windows 8. According to International Data Corporation, shipments of personal computers have fallen 14 percent from last year.

There are numerous reasons for this. Among them is the increased use of mobile phones and tablets over
laptops and desk computers.

“This is horrific news for PCs,” BGC financial analyst Colin Gillis told The Washington Post. “It’s all
about mobile computing now. We have definitely reached the tipping point.”

Technology companies must be nimble and innovative. Customers are constantly looking for something new.

It’s not just the newness of mobile computing that’s killing the PC market. The other culprit is Microsoft. Many experts say Windows 8 is a flop and sales have reflected that.

“The Windows 8 launch not only failed to provide a positive boost to the PC market, but appears to have
slowed the market,” said Bob O’Donnell of IDC.

It won’t be long before the overall computing prowess of tablets takes over and we move away from PCs. Ironically, some PC manufacturers are developing laptops with detachable keyboards, turning
the screen into a tablet of sorts.

It brings to mind what Steve Jobs said a little before his death. That we’re embarking on a “post-PC world.”

No doubt.

Many  of us would love to get rid of our cable TV provider.  The cost is out-of-whack high and – with the availability of digital and mobile television – cable is fast becoming irrelevant.

A Belkin and Harris survey of many disgruntled cable customers predicts that those who view at least one television show per month over the Internet will grow sharply.  The Internet-as-TV users had been chugging along at 6.9 percent growth rate, but this firm forecasts that those rates will jump to  37 percent in four years. By next year, more than half of all Internet users will be watching on Internet-capable devices.

What to do if you’re Time Warner Cable or Comcast?

Get in the game.

Time Warner Cable, for example, offers an app to watch TV channels based on subscriptions, but it limits customers to home-use only.  Beyond that, it offers no on-demand option so customers may view live shows. Worse, the number channels is limited because many networks have their own apps.

Basically, the Hulus and Netflixes of the world are grabbing market share from cable because cable television clings to an outdated model.

If the established cabled providers don’t innovate, they will fail. The upside? We’ll finally be able to cut that cable television cord.

What’s so bizarre about the mobile phone industry is that manufacturers (Apple, Samsung) are playing offense in growing their market share, while the providers (AT&T, Verizon) are playing defense.

Case in point: T-Mobile announced yesterday it will finally carry the iPhone 5 and customers can pay a $99.99 down payment for the phone with monthly payments after that without signing a contract with T-Mobile.

You might think this is a great marketing strategy for T-Mobile. Maybe so, but think about this. You can’t leave T-Mobile until the phone is paid off. By paying off the iPhone, specifically designed for T-Mobile’s network, in monthly payments you actually have the contract of sorts with the phone, not the carrier.

T-Mobile is reduced to just being the supplier.

A company’s success will be stunted without a focus on brand. But brand alone can’t salvage a lack of functionality. The two must work in tandem.

BlackBerry recently addressed some of those critical issues by increasing the size of their app store. CEO Thorsten Heins vowed that BlackBerry will offer 100,000 apps to coincide with the release of the Z10 smartphone.

Customers whose last interaction with the BlackBerry brand was its Playbook tablet will need to be convinced that the company’s app store is first rate.

BlackBerry needs a win after multiple product flops, internal executive shuffling, and a market that has changed rapidly. Everything now depends on sales of the Z10.

It’s critical that BlackBerry also offer an array of dazzling apps. Applications were irrelevant when BlackBerry was at its prime, but they are critical in today’s smartphone market. BlackBerry’s success will be tied to its ability to transform its brand while offering a product that can compete in the current market.

The transition can be difficult. Don’t take my word for it, look at Palm.

Amazon released its Kindle Fire HD last November and this week it slashed the price by $30. That’s a bad sign. Yet Kindle Business President Dave Limp cheerily explained that cost efficiencies in manufacturing were simply being passed along to Amazon customers.

Limp’s excuse sounds nice, but this is really about brand preference.

The Kindle Fire HD was already one of the most inexpensive eReaders on the market. This price reduction is a sign of poor sales.

Kindle’s main competition, of course, is the pricier Apple iPad. It’s odd that even a $100 difference between the iPad and the Fire was not a large enough price incentive to trigger Kindle sales.

Clearly, Kindle is thinking that $130 will drive customers to the cheaper alternative.

The Kindle brand is relatively successful but the dramatic price cut is a troubling sign of problems. Customers will almost always pay more for brands with meaning.

Amazon’s Kindle Fire is experiencing difficulties that probably have nothing at all to do with cost.