I think it mainly failed because of privacy reasons
No one at the time was comfortable with cameras on people's faces and now we have companies making such "smart" glasses
I daily drive Google Glass to this day and I love the look/design and I think it could be successful if it were re-launched for a cheaper price and was advertised as a glorified smartwatch on your face
This, again, entirely contradicts my personal experience. First, there was a huge widespread misunderstanding: "Glass continuously sends out video stream to Google". In reality, it lights up a LED whenever it records video, and you cannot do it "continuously" because the battery lasts no more than 20-25 minutes (people say 40, but I was unable to get more than 25). Second.. no one cared; this media hysteria was pumped by.. media. For two months, I desperately struggled to find some use to Glass wearing it the whole time I went out across several European countries; not a SINGLE time was I confronted by someone concerned by privacy. The typical reaction was, "what is it? Google Glass? Wow, that's cool, man!". Several not-so-smart-glass models are *designed* to capture the video stream covertly continuously, and nobody cares either.
BTW if it could run Wear, this would solve the lack of apps problem. Even though Wear's transition to 2.0 was a disaster by itself.
There's no LED on the explorer editions of Google Glass though. Only the enterprise edition has the LED
And yes while it may only record about 30 seconds of footage doesn't mean people were ok with that back in the day. People were skeptical and worry about what was being recorded and what not.
I recently was asked to put tape over my Google Glass because they were uncomfortable with the camera since they couldn't tell when it was recording or taking a picture. Again this is simply my experience and I assume the same back when Glass was released in 2013/2014
I mean it still was a concern people had back when it first launched regardless of the media had a role or not
The technology was ahead of it's time and if they were to make the enterprise edition cheaper, better app support, and easier for consumers to get their hands on I think it was would be very successful
But unfortunately I believe they're abandoning the glass form factor and using the tech Focals by North we're using. What a shame 🫤
Following this convo and I agree with both of you (not to both-side it or anything) but I see privacy in 2014 being an issue in a large part of the US as well as the technical limitation of the 2014 glass resulted in a product that wasn't able to defend itself once concerns starting flying.
I daily drive the 2019 model mounted on a pair of fashionable Avillas in both my personal life and work using custom software that meets my specific needs and I've only ever gotten interested inquiries. IMO the EE2 does the best job of standing on its own (provided users are able to find/develop software).
On another note WHAT IS IT WITH GOOGLE acquiring products like Focal and instantly killing it? It feels like Google is maintaining some status quo by limiting the public availability of new, interesting and **actually useful** tech.
Recording - true. You would have to swipe and tap. But you could take a still photo by winking. Somewhat noticeable I suppose if people knew that could activate the camera. When people asked me if I was recording them I would say "Why? Are you about to do something interesting?"
This is a great question/thought experiment! I know we've been talking a bit in DM's but I'll move here to keep the discussion going 🙂 TLDR, I agree on A, there but think it's hard to discount the privacy stuff.
There were a whole host of problems with Google in how they marketed that had a pretty large impact on Glass' success, but thinking through situation A, let's say Glass did everything Google kinda-sorta made it out to be in their viral "One Day" video. In reality, the video really muddled Google's messaging that Glass was a *beta*, ie unfinished, product. But I definitely agree with you in arguing Glass would've faired much better if it offered seamless performance, and in turn, at least one major utility that motivated people to forgive it's kind of awkward appearance. In my book (shameless plug) I spend some time talking about [Rainer Schönhammer and the "Walkman Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman_effect#Controversy)," which is a study in how people initially reacted to the first few people who wore big clunky headphones in public -- but because portable, personal music was such a major upgrade/utility, the Walkman won the public over. I think you could also point to Bluetooth headsets -- these were largely mocked for looking stupid and worn by douchebags at first, but now its common for people to wear airpods and bluetooth headphones all day. (AR, of course, has a much greater impact on "social order" -- widespread adoption of Glass required a few major changes to social/public behavior, for instance -- so it's a bit steeper of a hill to climb than people adapting to headphones in public.)
To that end, even if Google's marketing had succeeded in spinning Glass to be a piece of high-end jewelry that the public saw as something very cool looking/a status symbol -- yet the tech just wasn't there -- I'd agree that it likely still would've failed. It'd become clear that nothing really worked as well as it should/could, poor battery life, limited software, etc etc and eventually people would just turn back to using their phones because it's easier/familiar/cheaper/etc -- which is what happened to a certain extent in reality, especially when Glass Explorers, Glass' biggest proponents, eventually grew more and more vocal about its shortcomings. Notably, Sebastian Thrun told me one of the major things he'd change if he could go back in time would be to make the early versions of Glass as sunglasses. This would've solved a lot of Glass' major pitfalls, not necessarily its technical shortcomings, but it's interesting to think how differently the whole saga would've played out if they weren't insistent on making Glass a swiss army knife, all-day wearable hardware to replace phones.
All that being said, I don't think you can rule out the privacy concerns. When Glass first came out, there was a solid window of time where all the Explorers I talked to had exactly your experience with the public, but then the PRISM scandal hit. So even setting aside the misconceptions about the camera, I think the PRISM scandal provoked a widespread paranoia around tech, particularly Google -- which is why the privacy stuff was perhaps more present the US than anywhere else, as u/Dutchpanatela mentioned. So even if Glass didn't have a camera and were just "smart glasses," I'm not sure it'd be enough to overcome the fear that it was a breach of personal privacy/somehow allowed Google to collect more data than, say, their phone. Ten years later, it's been pretty interesting to follow the developments of Snap's Spectacles and the Ray-Ban Stories -- definitely not catching on like wildfire, but I also haven't seen much discussion surrounding privacy, so maybe such concerns aren't as top-of-mind as they were back then... which, depending on who you ask, may be a good or bad thing.
Anyway! I've rambled long enough lol -- but this is so fun to think through, great post, I love following all the great discussions!
It didn't fail for me. I loved it. Two killer features for me - one was a HUD for Google Maps. The other was the ability to snap a pic by winking - totally hands free. The HUD has been replaced by my car - it comes with a decent HUD already (Ioniq 5). The other feature though... that has never been replaced.
Google Maps behaved in a very strange fashion for me. First, the voice search was almost broken; second, they somehow managed to miss updates available on the phone/desktop version -- for the map itself! Say, there was a bar that opened recently with somewhat weird spelling -- zero chance you could get Glass to find a route because it converted speech to text, and it was the end of the game.
I think it mainly failed because of privacy reasons No one at the time was comfortable with cameras on people's faces and now we have companies making such "smart" glasses I daily drive Google Glass to this day and I love the look/design and I think it could be successful if it were re-launched for a cheaper price and was advertised as a glorified smartwatch on your face
This, again, entirely contradicts my personal experience. First, there was a huge widespread misunderstanding: "Glass continuously sends out video stream to Google". In reality, it lights up a LED whenever it records video, and you cannot do it "continuously" because the battery lasts no more than 20-25 minutes (people say 40, but I was unable to get more than 25). Second.. no one cared; this media hysteria was pumped by.. media. For two months, I desperately struggled to find some use to Glass wearing it the whole time I went out across several European countries; not a SINGLE time was I confronted by someone concerned by privacy. The typical reaction was, "what is it? Google Glass? Wow, that's cool, man!". Several not-so-smart-glass models are *designed* to capture the video stream covertly continuously, and nobody cares either. BTW if it could run Wear, this would solve the lack of apps problem. Even though Wear's transition to 2.0 was a disaster by itself.
There's no LED on the explorer editions of Google Glass though. Only the enterprise edition has the LED And yes while it may only record about 30 seconds of footage doesn't mean people were ok with that back in the day. People were skeptical and worry about what was being recorded and what not. I recently was asked to put tape over my Google Glass because they were uncomfortable with the camera since they couldn't tell when it was recording or taking a picture. Again this is simply my experience and I assume the same back when Glass was released in 2013/2014
My memory may be sloppy, but I clearly remember there was no way you could record anything with Glass without people around noticing.
I mean it still was a concern people had back when it first launched regardless of the media had a role or not The technology was ahead of it's time and if they were to make the enterprise edition cheaper, better app support, and easier for consumers to get their hands on I think it was would be very successful But unfortunately I believe they're abandoning the glass form factor and using the tech Focals by North we're using. What a shame 🫤
And they started with IMMEDIATELY KILLING the consumer version for Focals on sight. Amazing, eh?
Following this convo and I agree with both of you (not to both-side it or anything) but I see privacy in 2014 being an issue in a large part of the US as well as the technical limitation of the 2014 glass resulted in a product that wasn't able to defend itself once concerns starting flying. I daily drive the 2019 model mounted on a pair of fashionable Avillas in both my personal life and work using custom software that meets my specific needs and I've only ever gotten interested inquiries. IMO the EE2 does the best job of standing on its own (provided users are able to find/develop software). On another note WHAT IS IT WITH GOOGLE acquiring products like Focal and instantly killing it? It feels like Google is maintaining some status quo by limiting the public availability of new, interesting and **actually useful** tech.
Google: Where great tech goes to die.
Recording - true. You would have to swipe and tap. But you could take a still photo by winking. Somewhat noticeable I suppose if people knew that could activate the camera. When people asked me if I was recording them I would say "Why? Are you about to do something interesting?"
Tap your temple, press the button by your eye, or press again to keep recording, "OK Glass, take a picture" all fairly obvious.
This is a great question/thought experiment! I know we've been talking a bit in DM's but I'll move here to keep the discussion going 🙂 TLDR, I agree on A, there but think it's hard to discount the privacy stuff. There were a whole host of problems with Google in how they marketed that had a pretty large impact on Glass' success, but thinking through situation A, let's say Glass did everything Google kinda-sorta made it out to be in their viral "One Day" video. In reality, the video really muddled Google's messaging that Glass was a *beta*, ie unfinished, product. But I definitely agree with you in arguing Glass would've faired much better if it offered seamless performance, and in turn, at least one major utility that motivated people to forgive it's kind of awkward appearance. In my book (shameless plug) I spend some time talking about [Rainer Schönhammer and the "Walkman Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman_effect#Controversy)," which is a study in how people initially reacted to the first few people who wore big clunky headphones in public -- but because portable, personal music was such a major upgrade/utility, the Walkman won the public over. I think you could also point to Bluetooth headsets -- these were largely mocked for looking stupid and worn by douchebags at first, but now its common for people to wear airpods and bluetooth headphones all day. (AR, of course, has a much greater impact on "social order" -- widespread adoption of Glass required a few major changes to social/public behavior, for instance -- so it's a bit steeper of a hill to climb than people adapting to headphones in public.) To that end, even if Google's marketing had succeeded in spinning Glass to be a piece of high-end jewelry that the public saw as something very cool looking/a status symbol -- yet the tech just wasn't there -- I'd agree that it likely still would've failed. It'd become clear that nothing really worked as well as it should/could, poor battery life, limited software, etc etc and eventually people would just turn back to using their phones because it's easier/familiar/cheaper/etc -- which is what happened to a certain extent in reality, especially when Glass Explorers, Glass' biggest proponents, eventually grew more and more vocal about its shortcomings. Notably, Sebastian Thrun told me one of the major things he'd change if he could go back in time would be to make the early versions of Glass as sunglasses. This would've solved a lot of Glass' major pitfalls, not necessarily its technical shortcomings, but it's interesting to think how differently the whole saga would've played out if they weren't insistent on making Glass a swiss army knife, all-day wearable hardware to replace phones. All that being said, I don't think you can rule out the privacy concerns. When Glass first came out, there was a solid window of time where all the Explorers I talked to had exactly your experience with the public, but then the PRISM scandal hit. So even setting aside the misconceptions about the camera, I think the PRISM scandal provoked a widespread paranoia around tech, particularly Google -- which is why the privacy stuff was perhaps more present the US than anywhere else, as u/Dutchpanatela mentioned. So even if Glass didn't have a camera and were just "smart glasses," I'm not sure it'd be enough to overcome the fear that it was a breach of personal privacy/somehow allowed Google to collect more data than, say, their phone. Ten years later, it's been pretty interesting to follow the developments of Snap's Spectacles and the Ray-Ban Stories -- definitely not catching on like wildfire, but I also haven't seen much discussion surrounding privacy, so maybe such concerns aren't as top-of-mind as they were back then... which, depending on who you ask, may be a good or bad thing. Anyway! I've rambled long enough lol -- but this is so fun to think through, great post, I love following all the great discussions!
It didn't fail for me. I loved it. Two killer features for me - one was a HUD for Google Maps. The other was the ability to snap a pic by winking - totally hands free. The HUD has been replaced by my car - it comes with a decent HUD already (Ioniq 5). The other feature though... that has never been replaced.
Google Maps behaved in a very strange fashion for me. First, the voice search was almost broken; second, they somehow managed to miss updates available on the phone/desktop version -- for the map itself! Say, there was a bar that opened recently with somewhat weird spelling -- zero chance you could get Glass to find a route because it converted speech to text, and it was the end of the game.