What Will Google Glass 2.0 Need To Actually Succeed?

Nerval's Lobster writes As previously rumored, Google has discontinued selling Google Glass, its augmented-reality headset... but it could be coming out with something new and (supposedly) improved. The company has placed a relentlessly positive spin on its decision: "Glass was in its infancy, and you took those very first steps and taught us how to walk," reads a posting on the Google+ page for Glass. "Well, we still have some work to do, but now we're ready to put on our big kid shoes and learn how to run." Formerly a project of the Google X research lab, Glass will now be overseen by Tony Fadell, the CEO of Google subsidiary (and Internet of Things darling) Nest; more than a few Glass users are unhappy with Google's decision. If Google's move indeed represents a quiet period before a relaunch, rather than an outright killing of the product, what can it do to ensure that Glass's second iteration proves more of a success? Besides costing less (the original Glass retailed for $1,500 from Google's online storefront), Google might want to focus on the GoPro audience, or simply explain to consumers why they actually need a pair of glasses with an embedded screen. What else could they do to make Glass 2.0 (whatever it looks like) succeed?

Comments

Less creepiness

[DoofusOfDeath]

I've only been around a few people wearing Google Glass, and I had the stress / self-consciousness of constantly wondering if I was being filmed. That was not an enjoyable sensation.

Unless Glass 2.0 can make that issue go away, people are still going to want to punch Glassholes.

Re:Less creepiness

[ClioCJS]

Oh look... Someone justifying assault by implying that the victim is an asshole. Meanwhile, people who justify assault are..... Not(?) assholes?

Re:Less creepiness

[duranaki]

I've only been around one person with Glass and I never felt self-conscious or worried that they might be recording me. I constantly see cellphones in positions that *could* be recording me, but probably aren't. I wonder why we're okay with people always having their phones out, but seeing someone in fancy glasses makes us paranoid? Sure, it's more subtle with Glass, so? I suspect people only care because the media made such a big deal about it, enough so that they had to coin the term "Glassholes". But most people have never seen a Glasshole. I haven't. I mean the penetration of Glass is so tiny, how could you encounter people wearing Glass enough to form a stereotype about them?

That said, maybe next iteration could feature a bright white LED that flashes to let everyone know you are recording. And Google can then make a big push to inform people that No-Light=No-Recording. Would that reduce the creepiness? I'd hate to lose the camera, it enables a ton of awesome use cases. I suppose then we'd just hear ghost stories about people crippling the LED so they could once again be creepy.

Re:Less creepiness

[Anrego]

There are subtle but important differences.

Yes surveillance is ubiquitous, but it's usually managed by business owners or government agencies, which means it's very unlikely to end up on youtube. A bar wouldn't survive very long if they made a habit of posting embarrassing moments from their surveillance tapes on the web.

People with cellphone cameras is also ubiquitous, but using one to record something is usually fairly obvious.

Covert surveillance is also now mostly trivial, but it's not socially acceptable and very few people actually do it, so the chances of being covertly recorded in a bar are pretty slim unless someone has reason to.

Google glass is in an all new category. To many, walking up to a table while wearing google glass is roughly equivalent to walking up to that table with your cellphone camera pointed at the people sitting their, and thus has gotten much the reaction you would expect.

Re:Less creepiness

[swillden]

People with cellphone cameras is also ubiquitous, but using one to record something is usually fairly obvious.

That is the perception, but it's really not true. It's quite easy to record video while pretending to be texting, or something.

Re:Less creepiness

[blackomegax]

These places already record you though, for their own security. Look at it more like a personal dash-cam. Why shouldn't people be able to record their personal fields of view in public? Why does that offend you to the point of restricting a new technology? You're a flat out luddite. Sure if you don't like it, leave, but you should just accept it as a fact of life in the future. Camera density will only ever go up. You'll be on more and more of them, personal and private, and may not even be aware of that fact, and you can't stop it, so why worry?

Don't boil the ocean, target specific markets

[mykepredko]

There are a number of markets/professions where the Google Glass would be ideal (a big one that I keep reading about is aircraft maintenance, have drawings and manuals available on command in front of the technician's eyes).

Rather than trying to come up with something that is designed for everybody on the planet, figure out who could get the most advantage out of it in the short term and, working with that demographic, develop the hardware, the UI and database operation and work with the users to understand exactly the human factors issues. A number of people indicated that the camera was the problem, but I suspect that there are much deeper issues that need to be addressed.

Once you have become indispensable in one area, others applications will start becoming obvious and the product will seem less "creepy" and intrusive for other areas.

myke

Re:Don't boil the ocean, target specific markets

[kogut]

Tablets and paper already do this.

Yes, but I can see plenty of scenarios where, say, you're on a ladder with a two-handed tool inside an airplane wing, and you want to double check a diagram. Instead of climbing back down the ladder, finding the right page, etc, you could just look at the diagram of a part while you're simultaneously looking at the actual part. With the tool still in your hand. Increases efficiency. Possibly reduces errors. (less need for memory to store information as you switch from a paper manual back to the task, since you can look at the task and the manual at almost the same time (just switching focus).

That could be useful.

Well first, it has to be unnoticeable.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Preferably in black, unstylish eyeglass frames.

I don't want to advertise the fact that I'm wearing this thing. Google geeks may think it's the coolest status symbol ever. I don't. And I don't care. I want to use the map feature, get the weather report.

Yes, I know it can give me automatic Yelp reports, tell me who and what's around, get me dates, show me movies and deliver specs on my computer by looking.

I could care less. I'll use the maps. And the weather. Maybe news, if I'm waiting for a bus. If they want me to buy it, it has to be cheap and boring.

Cognitive Dissonance

[onkelonkel]

The cognitive dissonance in the posts today is amazing. (A lot of plain old stupid too).
 
There are cameras in every bar and restaurant filming you all the time. But nobody will acknowledge this fact. If they did, they would have to a) accept that they are ok with being filmed and that they are being total hypocrites about google glass, b) decide that it is not ok and not go to bars and restaurants any more.
 
The guy with the Google glass may or may not be filmiing you. The restaurant certainly is, and every person in the the place has a smart phone with a camera. If I hold my phone up at face height am I taking a selfie or filming you?
 
But we all hate to accept uncomfortable truths about ourselves, so we will deflect our mental stress on someone else. Lets de-humanize them first. They are not a person with smart glasses, they are a "Glasshole", and therefore we can punch them. You guys make me sick sometimes.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[bws111]

Sorry, but you are the one with the cognitive dissonance. A restaurant filming me does not bother me at all. Why? Because they don't do anything with it other than in the case of a crime. Show me a restaurant or bar that posts images and videos to the internet, and I will show you a business that is not long for this world.

If you can't tell the difference between someone taking a selfie and someone taking a picture of others that is your problem, don't assume everyone else has the same difficulty.

Re:Size

[Smidge204]

It's very, very difficult to get upset over things you don't know about.

Doesn't stop some people from trying, though...
=Smidge=

Re:Size

[LWATCDR]

"You think is OK for some Glasshole to walk into a restaurant where you are enjoying a public yet private dinner with a friend"
You keep using that word but I do not think you know what it means.
YOU'RE IN PUBLIC AND NO EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY!
Now if you book a private dining room you have some expectation of privacy.

In other words you can not have a public yet private anything. The very thought that you could strikes me as just odd.

Re:Size

[Solandri]

So, you have no issues with people recording you when you don't know about it?

You think is OK for some Glasshole to walk into a restaurant where you are enjoying a public yet private dinner with a friend, record it and put it up on the Intertubes? You are OK with that. I mean, it is a "public" place, right?

You're already being recorded at your public yet private dinner with a friend. Nearly every restaurant has had a security camera system recording 24/7 for a couple decades, apparently without you knowing about it. And yes the recordings sometimes get posted on the internet.

The problem here isn't Google Glass. The problem is a disconnect between reality and your perception of it. All Google Glass is guilty of is educating you that your perception is wrong.

Re:Size

[LWATCDR]

You still keep using that word without knowing what it means.
Private restaurant? Privately owned maybe and the owner could request people not wear glass in the restaurant but it is still in public. You have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
Here is a good way to determine if it is a public vs private space. Can you exclude other members of the public from entering legally?
If the answer is no then it is not a private space.

Re:Size

[interkin3tic]

I don't understand why it needs to have a camera on it. I just want a heads up display. It requires a smartphone right? Are there ANY smartphones which do not already have a camera on it?

If I'm walking along reading a text on a glass display and I see Bigfoot, I could pull out my phone and use that camera. Not having a camera on the glass itself would not be an issue. Bigfoot could say "Hey man, could you not film me," and I could put my phone back in my pocket and apologize. Then bigfoot would say "Are you still filming me with that google glass?" and I could say "No, it's glass 2, so there's no camera" and he would say "Oh cool, now I know I'm not being filmed and I can relax. Hey, have you seen 'Harry and the Hendersons.'" And I could say "Uh... I'm watching it right now!"

With the camera on there, I would assure him I'm not filming him still, and he'd still be nervous, and then might rip my head off. That's why I won't be buying a glass with a camera on it. I like my head where it is.

Re:Size

[Archangel Michael]

#2 Is unethical and should be illegal.

Yes, it is unethical, but it shouldn't be illegal. I call these "Asshole laws" trying to make being an asshole illegal. The problem with Asshole laws, is the unintended consequences and uses to harass people who were otherwise legitimately doing something not assholish.

Suppose you're in a restaurant, filming a birthday party for your 9 year old kid, and in the background is John, having a romantic dinner with "not John's wife". And you post it to Youtube, unwittingly exposing the nefarious John and his romantic "friend". Asshole law invoked, and you're now in trouble for recording a kids party at a restaurant.

So you now need to pass another law to protect yourself.

Fast forward, Asshole knows that John is having a romantic dinner (again) with his "not his wife" and uses an innocent cover to record John's indiscretion, and post it to Youtube.

The point being Assholes are going to do asshole things, we shouldn't be making laws to deal with them, because the consequences are often worse. That, and the real asshole is John for romantic dinning with "Not his wife".