Photo: Wired / Ariel Zambelich
Is Google Glass Finally Dead and Buried?
Will Google Glass rest in peace? Google on Wednesday stopped selling its enterprise version of the wearable device after failing nearly a decade ago to gain any traction with consumers.
Glass Enterprise succeeded Google Glass, a consumer version of the tech discontinued in 2015. That device initially went on the market in 2013, with developers and early adopters known as Google Glass Explorers paying $1,500 to test the new tech. RetailWire BrainTrust panelist Karen Herman was among the early testers.
Many critics expressed discomfort being on the other side of wearable technology that could record them without their knowledge. Ms. Herman’s experience was quite different, as described in a first-person account on RetailWire in 2013.
“When I go out in public, the response from passersby is one of delight and true curiosity at how Glass works and what it does,” she wrote in October 2013. “People are genuinely interested when I explain my use of Glass is mostly hands-free. I activate the device with a head motion and use voice commands to make phone calls, send text messages, visit YouTube and get directions while driving. I also use Glass to do comparison shop while in stores. After learning these details, most everyone asks when they will be able to buy Glass.”
Hopes were high for the Glass device to find its niche in business enterprise environments even as Google bowed out of the consumer market in 2015. A FirstPost article from that time cited use of the device by police in Dubai and medical practitioners as real-world examples of Glass in action.
The latest hardware update to Glass Enterprise took place in 2019, CNBC reports.
Major rivals, Apple, Meta and Microsoft, continue to invest in augmented reality tech, including some glass devices, even as Google is walking away from its Glass Enterprise.
Google, according to reports from The Wall Street Journal and Popular Science, plans to keep working on augmented reality eyewear devices despite raising the white flag on Glass.
More of the tech giant’s resources have been focused on generative artificial intelligence tech of late following OpenAI and Microsoft’s splash with ChatGPT.
Google parent Alphabet laid off 12,000 workers in January.
“These are important moments to sharpen our focus, reengineer our cost base, and direct our talent and capital to our highest priorities,” Alphabet Chief Executive Sundar Pichai wrote in a message to employees.
-
Glass — Google
-
Google Glass: A First-Person Account — RetailWire
-
Even the Guy Who Designed the iPod May Not Be Able to Save Google Glass — Wired
-
Google Glass in suspended animation: But will it see new life at the workplace? — Firstpost
-
Google ends enterprise sales of Google Glass, its augmented reality smartglasses — CNBC
-
RIP (again): Google Glass will no longer be sold — Ars Technica
-
Google Glass is finally shattered — Popular Science
BrainTrust
Dave Wendland
Vice President, Strategic RelationsHamacher Resource Group
Ryan Mathews
Founder, CEO, Black Monk Consulting
Bob Amster
Principal, Retail Technology Group
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: What is your eulogy for Google Glass? Where do you see opportunities for augmented reality headwear devices to make the biggest contributions in enterprise environments?
Requiescat in pace. Not every company can create such a device successfully. I was never sure why Google got into that business. For those who could succeed with it, I would start with Apple and work my way down the list of pure electronics manufacturers.
Despite Ms. Herman’s exuberance, clearly nobody wanted to buy these, otherwise Google wouldn’t have given up. A product whose time has not yet come and, given the negative reaction being viewed, may never come.
People in tech are very good at coming up with innovations. They are often far less successful at understanding how those inventions might fit into the lives of regular consumers. Google Glass is a case in point: interesting enough, but rather clumsy (who wants to wear special glasses?) and there are not nearly enough compelling applications. That said, this process is necessary: without experimenting and failing it would be harder to arrive at things that are truly life changing.
I have to admit I was flat wrong about the fate of Google Glass. When the glasses debuted in 2013, I fully expected the hands-free AR interfaces to change the way we interact with technology. I don’t know why the product failed to connect with consumers, but I applaud Google for helping usher in the dawn of the AR era. Despite its failure, I stubbornly still think the use case for Google Glass is legit. Perhaps we just need a fresh, fashion-first realization of that vision to click with consumers.
Uh, let’s see–this product was announced 10 years ago and Google/others have still not found a product/market fit. All that happened here was Google and others burned through some R&D money (well, probably a LOT of R&D money) and they failed. Hopefully they will continue to try to innovate, but this attempt is a failure.
Farewell Glass, we hardly knew you. You only wanted to show us the world through Google’s eyes, but the world didn’t like the view.
Delighted to be mentioned regarding my personal user experience with Google Glass, George! I remember when the public sentiment changed against Glass and users were called “Glassholes.” Google Glass was a disruptive innovation that did not work its way through the marketplace organically. It was 10 to 15 years ahead of the consumer. And I love my memories of using the technology and working with it.
Google’s grand experiment in connected headwear and the pioneering of this technology has paved the way for others. The learnings from Google Glass will not be dismissed and I expect Augmented Reality to continue its maturation process and technologies like Google Glass will be front and center.
As for the eulogy, I would suggest this:
“Here rests Google Glass, a technology that had its sights set high.”
Google Glass was a product in search of a market. It never found one. May it rest in peace.
I am disappointed. Ten years ago, I wanted a pair. I still do. It is one of the few tech things that really excited me. I guess there was not enough of me. I am still confident that someday a pair of AR glasses will fit.
Gene, I thought it was cool too ,but many years ahead in the future , I see this type of technology as a tiny microchip embedded in our heads to provide the same functions as the glasses.
Not so crazy….
Google Glass is a very cool technology. Maybe it’s a product that was born before its time. Steve Jobs prided himself on making Apple products that customers wanted, but didn’t know they wanted. Google Glass isn’t a need-to-have. It’s just an accessory.
There is no need for eulogy unless there is a death. Google Glass as a specific product may have failed but the idea of wearable AR is still in its infancy and I expect it will grow into a long and robust life. Google’s mistakes are obvious and largely self-inflicted. Despite the success Apple continues to have selling style over capabilities the first generation of Google Glasses were … well … ugly and about as unstylish as one could design. The result? A total failure. The reincarnated product never addressed real or perceived privacy concerns. All this means is that Google wasn’t paying attention. AR headwater still delivers great value in terms of training, augmenting individual skills in a times of crisis and – one day – may still be a standard feature of our daily wardrobes. Don’t count the technology out just because the pioneers tripped over their own feet. It’s all about the interface and reducing as many barriers one can between users and technology. Oh … and don’t forget to make users look, “cool.”
A learning experience ? The question mark indicating that’s the hope, but there’s no guarantee: if we put all failed innovations – from push button transmissions thru 8 track tapes right up to this – together does some pattern emerge that allows us avoid future mistakes…or is every failure unique ?
When I teach a new cohort, no matter what the subject, my first class is always the same. I teach failure is necessary to move forward.
Since public launch, most anyone I spoke with attempted to avoid people wearing these glasses. People don’t like being randomly recorded, watched, or in a simulation they didn’t ask to be part of.
Maybe the best case scenarios are ultimately away from public spaces, and best for doctors using in surgeries, or use where closed environments, like underground utilities need technical evaluation and reporting.