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

Size

[fxsoap]

The hardest problem I've seen people have with Google Glass is how obvious it is you are wearing the glasses. People in public assume you are recording them and it bothers them.

If you over come that, I think it would be a fantastic barrier to remove.

After that, give me a utility for these glasses that make me want to buy them/wear them/use them that benefits me beyond what I have or can have now.

That will make them much more attractive in many ways.

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".

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

[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.

Shutter

[jklovanc]

A visible physical shutter that can be moved over the camera lens to prove that one is not recording video. I realize that it does not deal with people not near enough to see the shutter but at least it will put the people at the table at ease. This is not a perfect solution but it might help.

Just remove the camera

[Anonymous Coward]

All Google needs to do is remove the camera. That way, it can still be used for notifications, searches of information and other overlays, and nobody needs to be worried about constantly being recorded. This reduces it to a simple HUD, but let's face it, everybody's smartphone is already a camera.

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

Observations from being a glass explorer.

[Darth Muffin]

My wife was a glass "explorer" and bought one, so I've got to try it some and watched her use it. Problems that I see are:
- Poor battery life
- Slow processor (what people really want to do with this is like augmented reality, and it's not quite got the horsepower)
- Lack of any apps that do something useful to most people that you can't do with a standard android device (just a gimmick at this point).
- Small and low-res screen, can't fit much useful info on it.
- Fragile

Honestly, the dorky looks and people freaking out because of privacy issues weren't an issue that we saw.
Most of the "explorers" are pretty mad that they spent $1500 to be abandoned. Google should at least offer a seriously discounted trade-up to the release model for them, but there is no talk of that. I doubt most explorers will buy it again.