Why Google Glass will fail and why it will not stop the success of smart glasses
"Smart glasses" - perhaps the most promising family of wearable devices available on the market. Google Glass is the most interesting gadget among them. Yes, Google Glass is a beautiful and cool device. They have a great design. They are small and futuristic. After all, Google Glass is a typical Google product, simple and cool at the same time. Despite this, I think that Glass will not be successful as a product and sooner or later fail.
Disclaimer: all of the following is my personal opinion and does not express the official position of the company in which I work or the R & D of the team I lead. To be honest, some of my employees argue with me that Google Glass is a great device that will conquer the world, etc. Of course, I exaggerate a little in this article, but still it seems to me that Glass will sooner or later fail.
So what's wrong with him? I see two problems:
1. The device itself. I will describe its main disadvantages below.
2. Its positioning and market. Next, I will try to draw some interesting historical analogies and project them into the future.
So, what's wrong with Google Glass? When you watch ads or listen to Google employees who promote Glass, the device looks so futuristic and cool that you start to believe that this is the future and you are looking for an order button. But your attitude can change a lot when you finally get the device at your disposal. We bought a couple of pieces for our R & D team a couple of months ago and ... well, I would not say that it was a big disappointment, but the device is very far from being considered ready to enter the market. Here is a list of five things that are most disappointing in Google Glass:
1. Battery . 4 hours of work in standard mode or 40 minutes of watching YouTube. And this is according to the official specification, in reality - even worse. Seriously, google? You produced a wearable device that dies before lunch, even if the charge was 100% when you drank coffee in the morning. Compared to this, even my Nexus 4, which barely lasts 24 hours, looks like a very energy-efficient device.
2. Overheating . Google Glass overheats like an iron if you shoot a video for more than 10 seconds or use a heavy application like World Lens for at least a minute. Sooner or later you will see the message "Glass must be cool down to run smoothly" and you will not be able to use the device for a while. My employees often put the device on the window sill to cool it down when debugging or testing heavy code. Good thing is winter.
3. Voice recognition . It just sucks. Perhaps if you are a native speaker of English and live in Caliphony or the UK, it works for you in most cases. At least, until you try to google some non-English word or send a message to your Polish friend named Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz (just want to say that I have nothing against the Poles, this is nothing more than an example). By the way, it would also be interesting to hear feedback from Scottish users . In fact, the worst thing in this situation is that you cannot edit what the device recognized using the keyboard on your smartphone, for example. Seriously, was it really so difficult to implement such functionality?
4. Reliability . The screen on our first device died in less than three months from the date of purchase. Other users also complain of similar problems . It is clear that the technology is new and not run-in, but still it is a bit disappointing if you take into account all the noise around the device.
5. Price . Google Glass should cost $ 300, not $ 1,500. Given all the problems described above, $ 1,500 is too much for this gadget.
I have to admit that problems 3, 4 and 5 are likely to be solved in the next version of Google Glass. But 1 and 2 are much stronger nuts, even for a giant like Google.
Despite these significant problems, I still do not think that they are the main reason why this gadget is waiting for oblivion.
Here I want to make a very short historical retreat to try to draw an analogy with a slightly different market.
Today, many people believe that the smartphone was invented by Apple when it released the iPhone. I think that this does not apply to Habr's readers, but nevertheless I will try to remember what happened to this market before the launch of the iPhone. Despite the fact that Apple made a huge breakthrough and brought smartphones to the mass consumer market, smartphones appeared long before the announcement of the iPhone.
Suffice it to recall four of them:
1. IBM Simon - the first smartphone in the world. A brick-like device at the price of $ 899 with a built-in phone, PDA and even a touchscreen. It's hard to believe that he was released in 1992, 17 years before the iPhone, but this is true.
2. Some of you may remember Palm devices - they were cool, had almost all the features of modern smartphones, and were widely used in the 90s and early 2000s.
3. Nokia's communicators were generally incredibly popular at the time - I personally dreamed of this when I was a student.
4. And, of course, Blackberry - it's hard to imagine a manager of the 2000s without him in your pocket.
What unites all these devices? They were not mass devices for the consumer market, they were positioned as devices for business. At that stage of technology development, it was much easier to make the device sharpened for several professional use scenarios than to make it for everyone. And, last but not least, it is much easier to train and inspire business users to use a new device for them, especially if they see how it improves their productivity.
But even though the era of smartphones before the iPhone were much less common, they actually made it possible to do several things that predetermined the subsequent success of smartphones in the mass consumer market:
1. They helped develop technology - size, energy efficiency, screens, batteries, wireless technologies, etc.
2. They prepared the market for a new type of device - similar to your business communicator, only better and more useful in everyday life.
3. Classic smartphones were not so bad and still occupy a significant part of niche markets. I mean not a wide market of business communicators, it is too big to be ignored by new players, but in specific scenarios, for example, when a user needs non-standard sensors or improved characteristics, you can still meet such devices.
Why am I writing about smartphones, because the article about "smart" glasses? Because, in my opinion, Google Glass is not an iPhone of smart glasses market, but rather a cross between IBM Simon and Palm Pilot.
')
What is good about Google Glass is that they created a huge movement in the market, inspired many people to work on their version of smart glasses, and drew investors' attention to this type of device.
Many interesting concepts have appeared in the world, including those using Google Glass. For example, our experiment with Google Glass - we created it to demonstrate how a real-life game with Google Glass looked like. I have to admit that this is nothing more than a prototype and in practice it can be very difficult to bring it to mind, given the limitations, some of which I mentioned above. Other excellent examples include the New York Police experiment , the use of Google Glass in surgery , logistics, and many other scenarios. What is bad in all these examples is that Google itself does not position Glass as a device for business, so most likely all these experiments will either die or switch to other devices that are more targeted for business.
There are a few promising startups that make their own smart points. Personally, I really like Lumus , but there are many other examples: Meta SpaceGlasses , GlassUp , Recon Jet and others. And, of course, corporations such as Sony , Samsung , SAP and even BMW have already joined this race.
It is important to understand that most of these organizations are not working on “smart” glasses for any occasion of life that should take over the world. Their efforts are more focused and focused on specific business needs. And, unlike Google Glass, they have very good chances to be successful. All these products will slowly but surely capture the market for business devices and prepare the groundwork for the future capture of the mass consumer market. People will get used to seeing policemen and doctors in smart glasses. And then some corporation will come and make a device for the mass market, like Apple did with the iPhone. It may even be Google itself, if they are still in this market.
Again, I am exaggerating a bit in this article. Google Glass may have a bright future. But it may not have. What I believe is that in the next 5-10 years we will see many examples of how smart glasses will change business, people and, in the end, the world. The only question is whether it will be Google Glass or some other device? In any case, the future is already here.
Disclaimer: all of the following is my personal opinion and does not express the official position of the company in which I work or the R & D of the team I lead. To be honest, some of my employees argue with me that Google Glass is a great device that will conquer the world, etc. Of course, I exaggerate a little in this article, but still it seems to me that Glass will sooner or later fail.
So what's wrong with him? I see two problems:
1. The device itself. I will describe its main disadvantages below.
2. Its positioning and market. Next, I will try to draw some interesting historical analogies and project them into the future.
Five reasons why Google Glass sucks
So, what's wrong with Google Glass? When you watch ads or listen to Google employees who promote Glass, the device looks so futuristic and cool that you start to believe that this is the future and you are looking for an order button. But your attitude can change a lot when you finally get the device at your disposal. We bought a couple of pieces for our R & D team a couple of months ago and ... well, I would not say that it was a big disappointment, but the device is very far from being considered ready to enter the market. Here is a list of five things that are most disappointing in Google Glass:
1. Battery . 4 hours of work in standard mode or 40 minutes of watching YouTube. And this is according to the official specification, in reality - even worse. Seriously, google? You produced a wearable device that dies before lunch, even if the charge was 100% when you drank coffee in the morning. Compared to this, even my Nexus 4, which barely lasts 24 hours, looks like a very energy-efficient device.
2. Overheating . Google Glass overheats like an iron if you shoot a video for more than 10 seconds or use a heavy application like World Lens for at least a minute. Sooner or later you will see the message "Glass must be cool down to run smoothly" and you will not be able to use the device for a while. My employees often put the device on the window sill to cool it down when debugging or testing heavy code. Good thing is winter.
3. Voice recognition . It just sucks. Perhaps if you are a native speaker of English and live in Caliphony or the UK, it works for you in most cases. At least, until you try to google some non-English word or send a message to your Polish friend named Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz (just want to say that I have nothing against the Poles, this is nothing more than an example). By the way, it would also be interesting to hear feedback from Scottish users . In fact, the worst thing in this situation is that you cannot edit what the device recognized using the keyboard on your smartphone, for example. Seriously, was it really so difficult to implement such functionality?
4. Reliability . The screen on our first device died in less than three months from the date of purchase. Other users also complain of similar problems . It is clear that the technology is new and not run-in, but still it is a bit disappointing if you take into account all the noise around the device.
5. Price . Google Glass should cost $ 300, not $ 1,500. Given all the problems described above, $ 1,500 is too much for this gadget.
I have to admit that problems 3, 4 and 5 are likely to be solved in the next version of Google Glass. But 1 and 2 are much stronger nuts, even for a giant like Google.
Despite these significant problems, I still do not think that they are the main reason why this gadget is waiting for oblivion.
Here I want to make a very short historical retreat to try to draw an analogy with a slightly different market.
Very short history of smartphones
Today, many people believe that the smartphone was invented by Apple when it released the iPhone. I think that this does not apply to Habr's readers, but nevertheless I will try to remember what happened to this market before the launch of the iPhone. Despite the fact that Apple made a huge breakthrough and brought smartphones to the mass consumer market, smartphones appeared long before the announcement of the iPhone.
Suffice it to recall four of them:
1. IBM Simon - the first smartphone in the world. A brick-like device at the price of $ 899 with a built-in phone, PDA and even a touchscreen. It's hard to believe that he was released in 1992, 17 years before the iPhone, but this is true.
2. Some of you may remember Palm devices - they were cool, had almost all the features of modern smartphones, and were widely used in the 90s and early 2000s.
3. Nokia's communicators were generally incredibly popular at the time - I personally dreamed of this when I was a student.
4. And, of course, Blackberry - it's hard to imagine a manager of the 2000s without him in your pocket.
What unites all these devices? They were not mass devices for the consumer market, they were positioned as devices for business. At that stage of technology development, it was much easier to make the device sharpened for several professional use scenarios than to make it for everyone. And, last but not least, it is much easier to train and inspire business users to use a new device for them, especially if they see how it improves their productivity.
But even though the era of smartphones before the iPhone were much less common, they actually made it possible to do several things that predetermined the subsequent success of smartphones in the mass consumer market:
1. They helped develop technology - size, energy efficiency, screens, batteries, wireless technologies, etc.
2. They prepared the market for a new type of device - similar to your business communicator, only better and more useful in everyday life.
3. Classic smartphones were not so bad and still occupy a significant part of niche markets. I mean not a wide market of business communicators, it is too big to be ignored by new players, but in specific scenarios, for example, when a user needs non-standard sensors or improved characteristics, you can still meet such devices.
Why am I writing about smartphones, because the article about "smart" glasses? Because, in my opinion, Google Glass is not an iPhone of smart glasses market, but rather a cross between IBM Simon and Palm Pilot.
')
Oh good
What is good about Google Glass is that they created a huge movement in the market, inspired many people to work on their version of smart glasses, and drew investors' attention to this type of device.
Many interesting concepts have appeared in the world, including those using Google Glass. For example, our experiment with Google Glass - we created it to demonstrate how a real-life game with Google Glass looked like. I have to admit that this is nothing more than a prototype and in practice it can be very difficult to bring it to mind, given the limitations, some of which I mentioned above. Other excellent examples include the New York Police experiment , the use of Google Glass in surgery , logistics, and many other scenarios. What is bad in all these examples is that Google itself does not position Glass as a device for business, so most likely all these experiments will either die or switch to other devices that are more targeted for business.
There are a few promising startups that make their own smart points. Personally, I really like Lumus , but there are many other examples: Meta SpaceGlasses , GlassUp , Recon Jet and others. And, of course, corporations such as Sony , Samsung , SAP and even BMW have already joined this race.
It is important to understand that most of these organizations are not working on “smart” glasses for any occasion of life that should take over the world. Their efforts are more focused and focused on specific business needs. And, unlike Google Glass, they have very good chances to be successful. All these products will slowly but surely capture the market for business devices and prepare the groundwork for the future capture of the mass consumer market. People will get used to seeing policemen and doctors in smart glasses. And then some corporation will come and make a device for the mass market, like Apple did with the iPhone. It may even be Google itself, if they are still in this market.
Conclusion
Again, I am exaggerating a bit in this article. Google Glass may have a bright future. But it may not have. What I believe is that in the next 5-10 years we will see many examples of how smart glasses will change business, people and, in the end, the world. The only question is whether it will be Google Glass or some other device? In any case, the future is already here.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/213465/
All Articles