Reuters:
Many developers and early Glass users are losing interest in the much-hyped, $1,500 test version of the product: a camera, processor and stamp-sized computer screen mounted to the edge of eyeglass frames. Google Inc itself has pushed back the Glass roll out to the mass market.
While Glass may find some specialized, even lucrative, uses in the workplace, its prospects of becoming a consumer hit in the near future are slim, many developers say.
Of 16 Glass app makers contacted by Reuters, nine said that they had stopped work on their projects or abandoned them, mostly because of the lack of customers or limitations of the device. Three more have switched to developing for business, leaving behind consumer projects.
My 2 cents: If Google Glass was going to grab hold as a consumer product, I think it would already have happened. That said, I think this will turn out to have been a good investment for Google. There are plenty of vertical applications for Google Glass’s heads up display. And there’s still the possibility that Glass can pivot in the consumer space, find another form factor that is friendlier, less threatening.
Most people I know Google Glass is beyond creepy.
It’s like the VR headsets of the 90s: way ahead of its time.
solution in search of a problem…and creepy as hell
“There are plenty of vertical applications for Google Glass’s heads up display.”
I’m not so sure of that. The enterprise has never seemed overly eager to work with Google outside of their core competency of ad sales. That whole “you’re not the customer, you’re the product” goes over with the unwashed masses, but business people tend to like to know exactly how they’re pimping themselves out and what the pay-off is.
“And there’s still the possibility that Glass can pivot in the consumer space, find another form factor that is friendlier, less threatening.”
Again, I’m not so sure. How has Google made any in-roads into consumer in any substantive way? Nexus devices have some of the smallest shares of any Android models. Yeah, the Chromecast got some penetration, but it was at a price point low enough to qualify it as almost risk-free. Plus, while it’s admittedly totally anecdotal, I’ve had more than one person say they have “no idea” where their Chromecast is now, but “in a drawer somewhere” seems to be the most likely location. I think Google still has a LONG way to go before it can design, produce, market, and retail a device with strong consumer appeal and decent margins, even if you include the value of the data to “The Algorithm.” Selling Glass-based products to the increasing privacy and security conscious consumer market would be a challenge for Phill Schiller and the famed Apple ‘RDF’.
not really. the problem with GG isn’t that the tech isn’t advanced enough, which was the problem with VR. no, the problem is social — we don’t like people wearing recording devices around us all the time.
Bingo!
Plus, people aren’t going to want to wear glasses that are constantly displaying ads, coupons, special offers, and menus from every business, billboard, and restaurant you pass walking down a city street.
There’s no question that an always-on, location-aware PDA than can inform you in intimate and non-intrusive ways hold enormous promise, but the break-through device isn’t going to come from Google. Personally, I think Microsoft has the best chance to do it, and Sony is probably second most likely.
Google Glass is all about the technology and not the user. It interests technologists like the people who read sites like this but it doesn’t significantly improve anyone’s life.
“You have to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology.” Steve Jobs in 1997 responding to the OpenDoc insult.
If Google Glass was going to grab hold as a consumer product, I think it would already have happened.
How?
It’s an expensive Beta program; even if was The Awesome, it still wouldn’t have really taken hold as a consumer product yet, not at the Beta program price point (I believe deliberately inflated to keep it To Serious People).
(I also don’t think it is The Awesome for general use, for reasons more or less paralleling the rest of the comment thread.)
Glass could work – in certain areas – say if a doctor was operating on a patient – he could gain more info on the condition, etc… and/or confirm proceedures – patient history while not having to pull out a tablet or phone or computer… or an auto mechanic or a building engineer – or a pilot with a in “glass” HUD – or a solider with a portable HUD. You would potentially have a whole more more “useful”, critial, vital information – IF the interface were good and the software were excellent and helped (not hindered) – GG could work – in certain areas, but as a public ‘PDA’ – yeah, its fairly creepy.
I’m not even sure I would call it a “beta” program … maybe gamma or detla – Google probably should have waited a few years to release the “beta glass”.
Google would have to undergo a huge change in culture, and monetization, before the FTC/FDA let them anywhere NEAR raw patient data.
For an auto mechanic or a building engineer, maybe. Anything in medical or healthcare, though, has to face a lot more scrutiny than a consumer-level device, though. Plus there are expectations of solid ongoing support, which Google has not exhibited for anything other than their core products like search and AdSense.
As for soldiers, I expect the military has already been working on tech like this, and they’d want something much more rugged than what Google has. Plus, again, there are expectations of solid ongoing support.
“Alpha” and “pre-alpha” (on “in development”) mean that something is less complete or functional than a “beta,” not “gamma or delta.”
Yeah, but what’s before alpha? I like to use the rest of the greek alphabet, though I guess it could throw people.