- Google Glass is a brand of smart glasses with an optical, head-mounted display. Just two years after they were launched, Google announced they would no longer be producing a consumer version of the glasses.
- Google Glass failed primarily because of a poor product-market fit. The developers believed the glasses would sell on hype and not on how they would solve user problems.
- Google Glass competed against more successful smart devices such as watches, speakers, and televisions. They also attracted criticism for their ability to film others covertly and didn’t perform any function especially well.
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Introduction and Hype | Google Glass was introduced as a revolutionary wearable technology in 2012. It featured a heads-up display that allowed users to access information, take photos and videos, and interact with the internet through voice commands and gestures. The announcement generated significant hype and interest in the tech world. |
| Explorer Program | Google initiated an Explorer Program in 2013, allowing a select group of individuals known as “Explorers” to purchase and test Google Glass before its official release. This move aimed to gather feedback and explore potential use cases for the device. |
| Privacy Concerns and Social Acceptance | Google Glass faced significant privacy concerns and social acceptance challenges due to its built-in camera and ability to record video without others’ consent. Concerns about privacy in public spaces led to the coining of the term “Glassholes” to describe users perceived as invasive. |
| Developmental Iterations | Google continued to refine Google Glass with developmental iterations, addressing concerns and feedback from users. These iterations included hardware improvements and changes in design to make the device less conspicuous. |
| Enterprise Focus | In 2017, Google announced the Glass Enterprise Edition, shifting the device’s focus away from consumer applications toward enterprise and industrial use cases. The new version found applications in fields such as healthcare, manufacturing, logistics, and field services. |
| Success in Enterprise | Google Glass Enterprise Edition found success in the enterprise sector, where it improved efficiency and productivity for various industries. Its hands-free operation, real-time data access, and remote assistance capabilities proved valuable in specific work scenarios. |
| Acquisition by Alphabet X | In 2019, Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., transferred the responsibility for Google Glass from the Google division to Alphabet X (formerly known as Google X), its subsidiary focused on “moonshot” projects and innovation. |
| Ongoing Enterprise Development | Google Glass Enterprise Edition continued to be developed and used in various industries, demonstrating its potential for specific enterprise applications. The device’s enterprise focus allowed it to thrive in niches where hands-free computing was advantageous. |
Table of Contents
Origin Story
Google Glass is a brand of smart glasses with an optical, head-mounted display.
Google developed the glasses with the intent to produce a ubiquitous computer allowing the wearer to communicate with the internet via voice commands.
Prototype Google Glass smart glasses were launched in April 2013 for the princely sum of $1,500. Almost immediately, they attracted criticism from consumers concerned about their privacy, safety, and cost.
Just two years later, Google announced it would be ceasing production of the consumer version of the glasses.
The company then pivoted to the business sector and launched Glass Enterprise Edition for certain workplaces such as factories and surgeries.
Why did the consumer version fail so spectacularly? Read on to find out.
Product-market fit
Google Glass failed as a product because its inventors did not conduct proper research on its potential users and the market.
Instead of developing a product that would solve user problems, they believed the glasses would sell on hype and revolutionary technology alone.
The early adopters were exposed to poor product development and could not identify any meaningful benefits to wearing the glasses.
Moreover, the glasses were not technologically advanced enough to warrant regular use, and Google had not determined whether they were comfortable to wear for long periods.
Competition
Google had lofty ambitions to augment reality with a touchpad, camera, and LCD or LED display.
In truth, however, all the company did was supplement reality.
Ultimately, the sunglasses had a limited battery life of between three to five hours.
They were also competing with smart televisions, watches, and speakers with faster processors, larger capacities, and better cameras.
Stigma and negative publicity
Google Glass attracted significant criticism after discovering wearers could film others covertly.
Some bars and restaurants banned wearers from entry, with the term “Glasshole” coined around the same time.
Google then released a statement instructing users to respect the privacy of others and not be creepy or rude, but the damage had been done.
The timing of the negative publicity was also unfortunate since there was also rising distrust around the power of big tech companies at the time.
Cost
Even the prototype version of the glasses retailed for $1,500 – equivalent to the price of a well-equipped desktop computer.
The high cost of the glasses was exacerbated by the fact that they didn’t perform any function, especially well.
As a result, those who could afford them were content purchasing a more affordable smartphone without the associated stigma of owning it.
Google released the latest version of its AR headset in February 2020. Known as Glass Enterprise Edition 2 andretailing for a more agreeable $999, the “faster and more helpful” release enables employees to perform their jobs more efficiently.
The product is most effective in manufacturing, logistics, construction, healthcare, and other industries that don’t require a dedicated mixed-reality device such as Microsoft HoloLens.
Project Iris
In September 2021, it was revealed that Google was working to develop an augmented reality OS for a new and innovative AR device. The initiative, known as Project Iris, involves a headset that will augment video from outward-facing cameras with various graphics.
Referencing those close to the project, American tech news websiteThe Vergeclaimed the product would more closely resemble ski goggles than typical glasses. It would also be run on an unspecified processor most likely based on Tensor with hardware chief Rick Osterloh noting it was the “perfect foundation for making big improvements in AR.”
The search giant is reticent to share details about Project Iris, with work undertaken in a separate building that requires a special keycard to access. There areover 300 employees working on the projectwith all signing non-disclosure agreements.
Google splits its AR division
In February 2023, various articles reported that Google had split its AR division in response to competitors like Oculus Quest and Microsoft HoloLenses increasing their market share.
The reports coincided with the news that Google AR head Clay Bavor – at the helm for 18 years – would be leaving the company in March. All AR efforts previously under the purview of Bavor (such as Project Iris) will be moved into two separate divisions.
The first, Devices & Services, is headed by Osterloh and encompasses the Pixel Tablet, Fitbit, Pixel Watch, Chromecast, and Nest speakers, cameras, and displays. The second division, Platforms & Ecosystems, is led by Hiroshi Lockheimer and will incorporate Google’s AR efforts.
Samsung collaboration
Google’s decision to incorporate AR into Platforms & Ecosystems is perhaps a nod to its recent collaboration with Samsung on Android-based extended reality (XR) headsets. Samsung president and mobile leader TM Roh hinted that the product was still in development but potentially close to a debut in the near future.
As part of the collaboration, Google is providing the software and a special version of Android tailored for wearable headsets and displays. The partnership and indeed restructuring of the AR division shows that Google is placing more of an emphasis on monetization. It also has the intention to adapt more of its services to XR environments.
Whether the company’s renewed focus on AR can overcome more advanced competitors and the negative experience it had with Google Glass remains to be seen.
Timing
While as a company, you can innovate and create new markets.
Often, technologies proceed with the development of complementary innovations.
AR might have been too early to be accepted at the time, given the strong transition from desktop to mobile.
In that phase, though, mobile won.
Setting the stage for the AR revolution
Augmented reality and virtual reality are taking center stage in what has been defined as the “Metaverse.”
Today these technologies and products might become the next frontier. As companies like Apple dominated the mobile industry.
Who’ll be able to tame the next wave will also ride a very large market.
Key Highlights
- Google Glass was a brand of smart glasses with a head-mounted display and augmented reality capabilities.
- It was launched as a consumer product in 2013 but failed to gain traction due to a poor product-market fit.
- The developers focused on hype and technology rather than solving user problems, leading to a lack of meaningful benefits for early adopters.
- Google Glass faced competition from other successful smart devices like watches, speakers, and televisions.
- The product received negative publicity and criticism for potential privacy violations, leading to the coining of the term “Glasshole.”
- The high cost of Google Glass, retailing at $1,500, made it less appealing to consumers compared to more functional and affordable alternatives like smartphones.
- Google pivoted to the business sector with Glass Enterprise Edition, targeting specific workplaces like factories and surgeries.
- Google continued its AR efforts with “Project Iris,” developing an augmented reality OS and innovative AR headset.
- In 2023, Google split its AR division and collaborated with Samsung on Android-based extended reality (XR) headsets to focus on monetization and adapting services to XR environments.
- AR and VR technologies are becoming central to the concept of the “Metaverse,” and companies are positioning themselves to dominate this emerging market.
Related To Google
Google Traffic Acquisition Costs
AI Paradigm
Main Free Guides:
- Business Models
- Business Strategy
- Business Development
- Digital Business Models
- Distribution Channels
- Marketing Strategy
- Platform Business Models
- Revenue Models
- Tech Business Models
- Blockchain Business Models Framework
Related
As an expert with a deep understanding of wearable technology, particularly Google Glass and its evolution, I can provide valuable insights into the concepts discussed in the provided article.
-
Product-Market Fit:
- The article correctly identifies that Google Glass failed due to a poor product-market fit. This was a result of the developers focusing on hype and revolutionary technology rather than solving actual user problems. The lack of meaningful benefits for early adopters contributed to its downfall.
-
Competition:
- Google Glass faced tough competition from other successful smart devices, such as watches, speakers, and televisions. The article rightly points out that these competing devices had faster processors, larger capacities, and better cameras, making Google Glass less attractive to consumers.
-
Privacy Concerns and Social Acceptance:
- Privacy concerns were a significant factor in Google Glass's failure. The built-in camera and the ability to record video without others' consent led to the coining of the term "Glassholes." The negative publicity and the backlash from establishments, such as bars and restaurants banning wearers, affected its social acceptance.
-
Cost:
- The high cost of Google Glass, priced at $1,500 for the prototype version, was a significant deterrent for consumers. The article correctly mentions that the glasses didn't perform any function exceptionally well, making them less appealing when compared to more affordable and functional alternatives like smartphones.
-
Project Iris:
- The article introduces "Project Iris," which highlights Google's continued efforts in the augmented reality (AR) space. The project involves the development of an AR OS and an innovative AR headset resembling ski goggles. This demonstrates Google's commitment to advancing AR technology despite the setbacks with Google Glass.
-
Enterprise Focus:
- Google's strategic shift to the enterprise sector with the Glass Enterprise Edition is discussed. The article notes that this version found success in industries such as healthcare, manufacturing, logistics, and field services. Its hands-free operation, real-time data access, and remote assistance capabilities made it valuable in specific work scenarios.
-
Alphabet X and Ongoing Development:
- The transfer of Google Glass responsibilities from Google to Alphabet X, the subsidiary focused on "moonshot" projects and innovation, is highlighted. The ongoing development of Google Glass Enterprise Edition in various industries is mentioned, emphasizing its potential for specific enterprise applications.
-
Collaboration and Restructuring:
- The article covers Google's collaboration with Samsung on Android-based extended reality (XR) headsets. The restructuring of Google's AR division, splitting it into Devices & Services and Platforms & Ecosystems, reflects the company's response to increasing competition in the AR market.
-
Timing and AR Revolution:
- Timing is identified as a crucial factor in Google Glass's failure. The article suggests that the technology might have been too early for widespread acceptance, considering the strong transition from desktop to mobile at that time. It also emphasizes the current importance of augmented reality and virtual reality in the emerging concept of the "Metaverse."
In conclusion, the provided article comprehensively covers the key concepts related to Google Glass, including its origin, challenges, strategic shifts, and ongoing developments in the AR space. The analysis demonstrates a thorough understanding of the factors that contributed to the success and failure of Google Glass and its implications for the broader wearable technology and AR markets.
