Why Google Glass Initially Sucked, And How It Rebounded Hard In 2017

Whenever we ponder the commercial success of a product, we are largely driven by impulses of uncertainty. In fact, even titans of industry are marred by the very same ambiguities; the release of an iPhone with no home button signaled a fundamentally new way of interacting with our devices, and had this mandatory change of behavior been perceived as gimmicky or impractical, then Apple would be screwed. Say what you will about Face ID, but it’s the one phone that makes facial recognition the only way of accessing your device, and iPhone sales haven’t been higher. The best technology companies have to bet big on trends of the era, and whether or not they’ve chosen the right one is often reflected during quarterly earnings, product life cycle, and general perception.

Even Google, a company I admire and deeply respect, is prone to the same uncertainty surrounding the release of their products, and it was no more evident than with their 2013 smart glasses – Google Glass. The device spawned the development of augmented reality hardware, with touch controls and gestures that softly mimicked something out of an Iron Man film. The expectations were monumental, and the price tag of $1500 added more fuel to the fire. If people were about to pay this much for a product that touted be the that revolutionary, then failure was not an option for Google. The smart glasses finally came out, and needless to say, the result was fairly underwhelming, and it’s this reality I wish to explore.

The Google Glass backlash originates from two deep-seated realities of making products for humans. The first is that despite the distractions and tumult of social media, we still yearn for personal relationships. The second, is that we still care about how others perceive us to an almost intemperate degree. Having a camera on your face that can record, process, and store everything you see can be incredibly invasive to many people, and this was the most detrimental part of the design. A glaring camera attachment that can see everything? That’s a hard NO for a lot of people. Interestingly however, I partly disagree with this notion – we’re fine with broadcasting our lives on Snapchat or uploading to Instagram at the dinner table, but the potential of being filmed rubs us the wrong way. I’m not asserting that the three are necessarily equal, but I will say that the personal information we reveal online is probably worth a lot more than an incidental video of you on the subway going to work.

Alright, back to the point. In addition to finding Google Glass as a potential invasion of personal privacy, many deemed it a striking fashion liability. Imagine walking around in 2013 donning a pair of Google Glass; people are undoubtedly going to stare, and given the high price as well as the “Silicon Valley” aura the device emanates, and you can see how it’s not necessarily the best look. Google was forced to re-evaluate their marketing strategy, and discern whether or not the general public was the best audience for their device. After all, the most important thing in building great products is the ability to understand your users, and had Google done this correctly (they almost always do so no complaints on my end), then Glass would have been taken much more seriously.

After re-launching earlier this year, Google Glass has targeted an entirely new dimension of users: those in professional work spaces. Imagine being a surgeon with detailed vitals and next steps fed to you real-time, or a factory worker on the Tesla Model 3 line, with assembly and quality-control instructions given to you on the Glass’ heads up display. When we think deeply about the requirements of such occupations, then Google Glass transmutes from an impractical technology to a ground-breaking fusion of hardware and software. In fact, Google’s release of Lens offers the real-time capability to process and analyze images/text, which could be hugely valuable when integrated with a product like Glass. Slowly, we find ourselves matching our needs as professionals and technologists to the ones initially provided by the smart glasses, and it begs the question: have we unfairly chastised Google Glass for simply being too advanced for its time, or was this a necessary blow such that Google could go back and re-invent the vision behind its product?

I reluctantly say yes, because I don’t think we’ve done so “unfairly.” Google Glass was marketed to the masses when it shouldn’t have been, and it forced the company to make the necessary shift in scope, and they’ve since made a resurgent comeback. Clearly, there’s an unstable reality behind great products and even greater companies, and if anything, kudos to Google. They built some innovative technology, made a few bad judgement calls, and rebounded with gusto – and is there really any more we can ask of when designing awesome products?