Google Glass: A Harsh Assessment
May 8, 2015
I read “The Debacle of Google Glass.” As a 70 year old wearer of trifocal lenses, I failed to see (pun alert) the future in this wonky product. I haven’t thought too much about Google Glass, although I did a research report for one of those really stable financial outfits.
“Debacle” comes at Glass with some zest. I read:
When Google introduced their Google Glass, this was the first thing that came to mind about this project. I wondered if Google even had a clue how tech adoption cycles develop. While it is true glasses had been used in vertical markets since 1998, even after all of this time, we saw no interest by consumers. Google’s decision to aim Glass at consumers first, yet price them as if they were going to vertical markets, stumped me. Even the folks who had spent decades making glasses for use in manufacturing, government applications, and transportation were dumfounded by Google’s consumer focus with Google Glass, priced at $1500. Apparently, Google found out the hard way how tech products get adopted. They lost hundreds of millions of dollars on this project and, worse yet, they soured the consumer market for similar products. Even those with disposable income who could afford to be a Glass Explorer have to feel taken as Google used them as beta testers at their personal expense. I have seen a recent report that details the damage in consumer minds about Google Glass and, even if a competitor came to market with a cheaper product better than Glass, they would have a hard time getting anything but vertical users interested.
The idea that Google has some weak spots is not a new one. The write up includes what strikes me as a positive nod to the Apple Watch. My hunch is that the idea is that Apple is better at some things than Google.
The write up pops the “debacle” word again in this passage which I highlighted with my trusty pink marker. I reserve pink for anti Google sentiments, by the way:
Google glasses was a debacle for multiple reasons. It gave Google a black eye in the minds of consumers and cost them a lot in the way of consumer confidence when it comes to their efforts in hardware. It also tainted the market for consumer glasses for them and competitors in the future beyond how these products can be used in vertical markets. It also proved to be a debacle for a lot of partners who lost serious money on the Google Glass project. I spoke at a major customer conference of a company who was highly focused on the optical side of the glass. For years, they were very successful in vertical markets but were pulled into the consumer glasses area by Google and the media hype and tried to convince their own customers to jump into the space with competitive products. To their chagrin, most of their customers passed on this and I am sure they are glad they did.
Like most Glass analyses, this write up ignores some of the points I still find interesting; for example, the Babak Parviz (yep, the smart contact lens person with the multiple versions of his name) Microsoft-Google-Amazon adventure, the impact of the senior manager-marketer interaction on intra company inter personal processes, the fascinating sales approach, the likely re-emergence of a more fashionable and stylish Glass, and the concomitant use of the festive neologism “glasshole.” Not many products warrant a coinage like “glasshole.”
If you are interested in Glass, you will find the write up fascinating. Perhaps the full story of Glass will emerge as a Netflix original series?
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2015
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
