December 15, 2014
Can (or should) Google Glass be saved?
Google Glass, expected to be released in 2014 in its earlier-hyped days, is now expected to be released in 2015 at the earliest. Some are now questioning whether Google will eventually abandon the project.
In November, Reuters reported that nine out of 16 Glass app developers contacted had ceased development "because of the lack of customers or limitations of the device," while three others had given up on making Glass software for the consumer market.
Along with the consumer backlash since 2012, reports of the exit of Glass developers inside Google in recent months and Glass Explorer Edition kits selling at half price on eBay have been pointed to as signs that a mainstream launch has lost momentum.
Function and fashion both present challenges for consumer adoption.
Function wise, the best feature often cited is being able to take pictures without using your hands. Smartwatches, which are primed to take off over the next few years, accomplish many of the other functions. The battery life of less than three hours also makes it tough for Glass to be considered a device used to accomplish daily tasks.
On the fashion side, Glass’s protruding camera has been seen as too "nerdy." Privacy concerns led to bans in public places.
"What we can say at this point is that Google has not built the next smartphone, or even the next smartwatch," wrote Will Oremus, Slate’s senior technology writer. "The world at large isn’t ready for face-computers. More importantly, face-computers aren’t ready for the world at large — and they probably won’t be in the foreseeable future."
Mr. Oremus believes Glass’s partnership with Luxottica may point to its future as a luxury eyewear accessory. Many still see wide potential in the workplace for surgeons, cooks, plant workers and others who could benefit from hands-free access to a portable computer.
Google, which just celebrated the debut of the 100th app for Glass, claims the company is strongly committed to the project.
"It may not be happening today," Scott Strawn, an analyst with IDC, told Computerworld, "but these initial efforts are important in getting software developers to get thinking about these concepts."
- Google Glass
- 4 Signs That Google Glass Is Dead – Motley Fool
- Google Glass future clouded as some early believers lose faith – Reuters
- Is Google Glass On The Brink Of Going Mainstream, Or The Brink Of Failure? – Digitaltrends
- The Moonshot That Missed – Slate
- No, Google Glass isn’t dead – Computer World
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
What future do you see for Google Glass? Do you see the struggles of Google Glass affecting the potential for other wearable computing devices?
Poll
Wearable tech is at a maturity point where it has reached the ankle and wrist with Fitbit and the Apple Watch. But the glasses look like a Band-Aid on someone’s glasses. Millennials want all info all the time. But this is not the right time, kids. So sit, be calm and look at your 8×12 phone.
Google Glass may have limited commercial applications but as a consumer product the likelihood of broad-based commercial success is slim to none.
The reasons are many and several have been stated in the article including privacy, battery life, the nerdy look, the lack of apps, etc. One that was not mentioned is safety. Not sure what presents the greater risk, Google Glass wearers or people walking with their heads down reading their phones. Same might be said of a wearer driving a car or an idiot trying to text while driving. All of these situations are dangerous. Certainly some more than others.
As a Google Glass Explorer, I have found the best feature of the product to be the overlay of virtual information onto the “real” world. That information includes everything from navigation to language translation (superimposed onto foreign text, or spoken to you via the ear bud) to historical and commercial information (such as prices or hours of operation).
Is this any different from what a smartphone can do? Actually, it is the same. Except by superimposing the information onto one’s field of vision, Google Glass changes the way you experience the world. Referring to one’s smartphone is analogous to referring to a “book” or tool. By changing our personal experience of the world, Glass (or something like it) is the next step forward in personal, digital interface.
Sure Glass is clunky. I’ve lived it. Also, some people are afraid that their histories or personal information may be visible to me as a wearer. Others are wary that I may be taking their picture (I’m not). Glass uncovers serious privacy concerns. But those issues should be addressed anyway, since they are already in play with current technology.
Despite these drawbacks, Google Glass offers a unique, forward-leaning digital experience, which holds relevance for each individual wearer. Instead of a “heads down” society, where we are all looking at our mini-screens, we could become a “heads up” society, where we are simultaneously interacting with the 3-D world and the virtual one.
To some this may seem like a dystopia. But I believe our feelings here are nearly irrelevant. Whether we like it or not, the future is coming and the seams between the real world and the digital one are coming unraveled.
The Motley Fool article was right on the money as smart-watches and GoPro obsoleted the value proposition of Google Glass. In addition, new developments with Li-Fi using invisible light beams for data transfers faster than wireless, and which will not require glasses, also sunset the AR proposition of Google Glass.
One friend who ordered Glass tried it and sent it back. There just wasn’t a reason to own one.
Wearable tech is going to be ubiquitous and valuable, but we may not be there yet.
I’m afraid that Google Glass is/was a wonderful idea whose time has passed.
We should all thank Google (and other companies) that push the envelope in product design, technology and innovation. Companies like Google pave the way for the future.
Google Glass is a cool, but currently we don’t see many people using, or should I say wearing, their glasses. However, there weren’t many people that interested in the first generation of electric cars (slow cars that needed to be charged more often than was reasonably convenient) or even the first mobile phones (large boxes bolted to the floor of the car with an even larger box in the trunk). But there were a few that embraced these technologies. As they did, the manufacturers made improvements. Eventually the improvements caught on with a larger audience, and eventually they reached critical mass.
Google Glass may be at a tipping point, hopefully headed toward a larger customer base that embraces the technology, and eventually a larger audience of mass appeal.
When Glass was announced I immediately thought “Segway—another product released with vast expanses of hype claiming it was destined for mass market but which had ended up filling only a niche.
I think it’s clear now that this describes Glass. It’s useful technology that has key applications like in surgery. But mass market? Only as a gimmick for those who can afford it.
What’s astonishing is how thoroughly the hype worked on the press. One thing we all need to treat cautiously is the massive hype machine in tech. It’s well refined, well funded, and can make even the worst ideas appear phenomenal. But it’s also easily managed by applying common sense.
Ubiquitous digital tech (dubiquity?) may suffer a few short-term epic fails, but will eventually prevail and pervade.
Experiments like Google Glass will seem quaint in retrospect, but it and other early wearable tech endeavors provide the user experience lessons required for the design of truly useful IT solutions to come.
Many good ideas were born in companies that had no idea how to bring them to the market. In the IT industry two glaring examples are the DOS operating system and the Graphic Users Interface both for personal computers. Google is a great company doing a lot of amazing things. I just don’t know many that own one, a Google that is. No product or plan of any kind or magnitude is worth any thing if the company can’t sell it. Google has its problems with sales as we see here.
Wearables are developing steadily and quickly as desirable consumer products. For all the reasons stated, Google Glass doesn’t have the characteristics people are looking for, all the while being perceived as intrusive and off putting. I view Google Glass as an offering that hasn’t made the cut, at least not yet. But wearable computing devices are here to stay and grow.
Google Glass is just not the right thing for now. Being “in your face” makes it far too distracting for mass adoption.
On the other hand, wearable devices will be appearing more and more as the right applications are identified.
And that’s my 2 cents….
I agree with most here—it was the first attempt of what we know as wearable technology. It was a cool concept at first, but it took so long to get app developers on the boat. The other issue that is hurting Google Glass is the cost. $1500 is a lot of money. There are a lot of wearables now and wearables coming in the future that can accomplish the same as Google Glass. Who knows? In the future there will be an implant that accomplishes the same thing as Google Glass.
Wearable tech on our wrists or ankles for fitness are widely accepted by society, whereas face tech is not. Think about it: How much have eyeglasses actually changed in the past 200 years or so? We just ain’t ready for it … yet. Bluetooth earpieces are somewhat utilized, but not much, really. I think Google is coming closer to an acceptable device for the face, however, it is too much of a diversion from traditional glasses to be swiftly adopted.
I believe it depends on the purpose, or perceived purpose, of the technology,
Google Glass has made the news due to privacy issues, but there are practical uses of the technology that will make it attractive to individuals and organizations.
Imagine the ability to provide them to customers as they visit a retail store so they can see an option of the product in a different color, size, and the ability to order online if not available in the floor. In the same manner tablets have made an impact in retail floors and customer service, an iteration of Google Glass might provide the same.
I don’t see any future for it. I can’t imagine any circumstance where it would be vital to my well being. Keep thinking up stuff like this though—sooner or later you will hit on something!
I see a pivoted future for Google Glass. When I became an Explorer a year and a half ago, my intention was to use Glass in my work as a design tool and for me, Glass has worked beautifully. The added value has been using Glass as a personal communication tool, too.
Clearly, the public is not ready for Glass as a personal communication tool only, due to factors mentioned in Tom’s article. I think Glass will grow in favor as a business tool for many industries and over time, with some redesign and improved functionality, become more accepted as a personal communication tool by a growing percentage of the public, who are early adapters, have explored other wearables, and, like me, find they like Glass best.
As for now, I’m very interested to see where Google takes Magic Leap and hope it shows up on a future update for Glass.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Wearable tech is at a maturity point where it has reached the ankle and wrist with Fitbit and the Apple Watch. But the glasses look like a Band-Aid on someone’s glasses. Millennials want all info all the time. But this is not the right time, kids. So sit, be calm and look at your 8×12 phone.
Google Glass may have limited commercial applications but as a consumer product the likelihood of broad-based commercial success is slim to none.
The reasons are many and several have been stated in the article including privacy, battery life, the nerdy look, the lack of apps, etc. One that was not mentioned is safety. Not sure what presents the greater risk, Google Glass wearers or people walking with their heads down reading their phones. Same might be said of a wearer driving a car or an idiot trying to text while driving. All of these situations are dangerous. Certainly some more than others.
As a Google Glass Explorer, I have found the best feature of the product to be the overlay of virtual information onto the “real” world. That information includes everything from navigation to language translation (superimposed onto foreign text, or spoken to you via the ear bud) to historical and commercial information (such as prices or hours of operation).
Is this any different from what a smartphone can do? Actually, it is the same. Except by superimposing the information onto one’s field of vision, Google Glass changes the way you experience the world. Referring to one’s smartphone is analogous to referring to a “book” or tool. By changing our personal experience of the world, Glass (or something like it) is the next step forward in personal, digital interface.
Sure Glass is clunky. I’ve lived it. Also, some people are afraid that their histories or personal information may be visible to me as a wearer. Others are wary that I may be taking their picture (I’m not). Glass uncovers serious privacy concerns. But those issues should be addressed anyway, since they are already in play with current technology.
Despite these drawbacks, Google Glass offers a unique, forward-leaning digital experience, which holds relevance for each individual wearer. Instead of a “heads down” society, where we are all looking at our mini-screens, we could become a “heads up” society, where we are simultaneously interacting with the 3-D world and the virtual one.
To some this may seem like a dystopia. But I believe our feelings here are nearly irrelevant. Whether we like it or not, the future is coming and the seams between the real world and the digital one are coming unraveled.
The Motley Fool article was right on the money as smart-watches and GoPro obsoleted the value proposition of Google Glass. In addition, new developments with Li-Fi using invisible light beams for data transfers faster than wireless, and which will not require glasses, also sunset the AR proposition of Google Glass.
One friend who ordered Glass tried it and sent it back. There just wasn’t a reason to own one.
Wearable tech is going to be ubiquitous and valuable, but we may not be there yet.
I’m afraid that Google Glass is/was a wonderful idea whose time has passed.
We should all thank Google (and other companies) that push the envelope in product design, technology and innovation. Companies like Google pave the way for the future.
Google Glass is a cool, but currently we don’t see many people using, or should I say wearing, their glasses. However, there weren’t many people that interested in the first generation of electric cars (slow cars that needed to be charged more often than was reasonably convenient) or even the first mobile phones (large boxes bolted to the floor of the car with an even larger box in the trunk). But there were a few that embraced these technologies. As they did, the manufacturers made improvements. Eventually the improvements caught on with a larger audience, and eventually they reached critical mass.
Google Glass may be at a tipping point, hopefully headed toward a larger customer base that embraces the technology, and eventually a larger audience of mass appeal.
When Glass was announced I immediately thought “Segway—another product released with vast expanses of hype claiming it was destined for mass market but which had ended up filling only a niche.
I think it’s clear now that this describes Glass. It’s useful technology that has key applications like in surgery. But mass market? Only as a gimmick for those who can afford it.
What’s astonishing is how thoroughly the hype worked on the press. One thing we all need to treat cautiously is the massive hype machine in tech. It’s well refined, well funded, and can make even the worst ideas appear phenomenal. But it’s also easily managed by applying common sense.
Ubiquitous digital tech (dubiquity?) may suffer a few short-term epic fails, but will eventually prevail and pervade.
Experiments like Google Glass will seem quaint in retrospect, but it and other early wearable tech endeavors provide the user experience lessons required for the design of truly useful IT solutions to come.
Many good ideas were born in companies that had no idea how to bring them to the market. In the IT industry two glaring examples are the DOS operating system and the Graphic Users Interface both for personal computers. Google is a great company doing a lot of amazing things. I just don’t know many that own one, a Google that is. No product or plan of any kind or magnitude is worth any thing if the company can’t sell it. Google has its problems with sales as we see here.
Wearables are developing steadily and quickly as desirable consumer products. For all the reasons stated, Google Glass doesn’t have the characteristics people are looking for, all the while being perceived as intrusive and off putting. I view Google Glass as an offering that hasn’t made the cut, at least not yet. But wearable computing devices are here to stay and grow.
Google Glass is just not the right thing for now. Being “in your face” makes it far too distracting for mass adoption.
On the other hand, wearable devices will be appearing more and more as the right applications are identified.
And that’s my 2 cents….
I agree with most here—it was the first attempt of what we know as wearable technology. It was a cool concept at first, but it took so long to get app developers on the boat. The other issue that is hurting Google Glass is the cost. $1500 is a lot of money. There are a lot of wearables now and wearables coming in the future that can accomplish the same as Google Glass. Who knows? In the future there will be an implant that accomplishes the same thing as Google Glass.
Wearable tech on our wrists or ankles for fitness are widely accepted by society, whereas face tech is not. Think about it: How much have eyeglasses actually changed in the past 200 years or so? We just ain’t ready for it … yet. Bluetooth earpieces are somewhat utilized, but not much, really. I think Google is coming closer to an acceptable device for the face, however, it is too much of a diversion from traditional glasses to be swiftly adopted.
I believe it depends on the purpose, or perceived purpose, of the technology,
Google Glass has made the news due to privacy issues, but there are practical uses of the technology that will make it attractive to individuals and organizations.
Imagine the ability to provide them to customers as they visit a retail store so they can see an option of the product in a different color, size, and the ability to order online if not available in the floor. In the same manner tablets have made an impact in retail floors and customer service, an iteration of Google Glass might provide the same.
I don’t see any future for it. I can’t imagine any circumstance where it would be vital to my well being. Keep thinking up stuff like this though—sooner or later you will hit on something!
I see a pivoted future for Google Glass. When I became an Explorer a year and a half ago, my intention was to use Glass in my work as a design tool and for me, Glass has worked beautifully. The added value has been using Glass as a personal communication tool, too.
Clearly, the public is not ready for Glass as a personal communication tool only, due to factors mentioned in Tom’s article. I think Glass will grow in favor as a business tool for many industries and over time, with some redesign and improved functionality, become more accepted as a personal communication tool by a growing percentage of the public, who are early adapters, have explored other wearables, and, like me, find they like Glass best.
As for now, I’m very interested to see where Google takes Magic Leap and hope it shows up on a future update for Glass.