Why Google Glass Failed
P.S.: It didn't have to.
This is part 1 of 2 of a recurring theme regarding Google Glass. For the second part, click here.
2013 was one of the most interesting years in recent American history. Flying cars were really big. The Samsung Galaxy S4 with its non-touch display. Grand Theft Auto V came out and shook the video game world. And Taylor Swift stopped being a country girl for a more cosmopolitan look. If you remember any of that, you are probably in college, wishing you could get out of this pandemic and re-live all those good times.
But one thing that everyone was anticipating the most was Google Glass. In an age where humans and technology are becoming one, Google glass should have stolen the competition. With its abstract design and holographic display, it should have been the bridge between flesh and computer. Certainly, its $1,500 price tag should have enticed people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to give up their chocolate bar smartphones and walk into the future.
Unfortunately, despite the promises Google made to potential buyers, it was the biggest disappointment in ocular technology since the Nintendo Virtual Boy. Like the Virtual Boy, much of its maladies come from the very design itself. Google Glass doesn’t have a feature that allows the user to attach their lenses to the frame. Also, the projector is detachable, but if you do that, you get no power because the battery is built into the frame. It was a prototype that came out prematurely.
I remember back in 2013 when I was in Middle School, I was a part of the robotics club where we saw a prototype. The first thing I noticed was that it looked very lopsided. Everything, from the controls to the projector was on the right side of the frame. Not only was this an eye-sore to look at, but when you laid it down, one side of the glass stuck up in the air.
1. Google Glass was designed without recognizing the fact that over 70% of all Americans have an ocular disability, like me. It doesn’t have a feature that allows the user to attach their lenses to the frame. If it did, as I’ve said, you couldn't use it, because you wouldn’t have a battery to power the device. Without a 20/20 vision, everything appeared blurry. But that’s okay for both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, as they don’t need glasses.
2. Another major problem with Google Glass is the User Interface. When you use the glass, you find yourself looking up to see an image. A tiny projector projects a tiny window of information. To other people, you look ridiculous while looking at the screen. You would find this to be especially problematic, especially if you walk onto a street with fast traffic. As you look up, you soon forget about imminent dangers and walk into potential danger.
3. Wearing the Google Glass, you feel that the right side of the glass weighs more than the left side. For the first few minutes, it doesn’t feel painful, but over time it can be irritating. After thirty minutes, I found myself taking off the glasses and shaking my head. Also, because the battery is located there, there could be a risk that it would set your head or hair on fire. For most people, their right side would feel the heat of the battery.
4. The ‘controller’ for the Glass is operated by a touchpad operating on the side of the glasses. This controls the major functions of the glasses, from the user interface to the various preinstalled games. Its position felt very unnatural to play with and unenjoyable, due to the lack of controllability. When I wanted to click on an application, I had to double-tap the application in order to use it.
5. But the worst problem, by a country mile, is the battery life. Even though Google claims you can get eight hours out of the battery, the best I have managed was 55 minutes. And that is with the Wi-fi off as well as Airplane Mode on. I calculated that if you had all the background apps running, with Wi-fi on and Airplane mode off, you would get at best 15–20 minutes.
As much as Google Glass was seen as a ‘savior’ and a cultural icon in Anno Domini 2013, it failed to gain any traction in the technology market. Much of the issues listed above, such as Exclusivity, User Experience, Design Ergonomics, Location and use of the controller, and the battery life all add up to a piece of technology that was a badly-executed good idea. Had the Glass succeeded, we could have seen major innovations in brain tech. We could have made diagnosis of certain neurological diseases, like Glioblastomas, much easier. We could have made telekinesis a real possibility. Where Google failed, was that they spent more effort in getting the glass to market than developing the device.
