I’m a Google Glass skeptic and think it’ll be the next Apple Newton

Turns out nerds are crazy about Google Glass
Recently I tweeted the following:

i’m a google glass skeptic. Who’s with me?

Turns out most people think Google Glass is going to be awesome. Frankly, I was surprised- I figured it would be more balanced. But it turns out that people are more excited about the idea of Glass than any particular use case. And I’m excited about the product category too, but think the v1 might suck.

Google Glass is the new Apple Newton
One day wearable computing glasses may turn out awesome, but I’m convinced that the Google Glass will be like the Apple Newton- a visionary product well ahead of its time, and maybe 10 years after its release, someone will figure out how to make it mainstream using a different design. Regardless of whether the v1 is good, all the investment in wearable computing is certainly exciting. What nerd doesn’t want to fulfill their dream of being a cyborg? And within a few iterations, it may be that the industry will come out with a v5 that is awesome, just the same way that the iPhone/iPad eventually fulfilled the dream of the Newton. Let’s hope that becomes the case, but in the meantime, I’m not optimistic about the v1 of Google Glass.

Is it better than smartphones?
My skepticism is rooted in one idea: For $1,500 (or $1k or even $500), the Google Glass will have to do certain tasks significantly better than the smartphone justify the price. And in the next 2 years, it may have to compete with many other devices like wearable watches that fulfill some of the same tasks too. And I’m skeptical that there’s enough tasks where it’ll be worth it, and I’m skeptical that using voice as the primary input will be good enough to drive the whole interface.

Beyond the idea that it’s cool, you have to ask:

In what tasks does Google Glass actually perform better than a smartphone?

And I don’t think there’s enough use cases to make this work.

Looking at the use cases
One datapoint on this is to watch the recent Glass marketing video to find out all the use cases they demonstrate. But let’s try to ignore all the awesome acrobatics and beautiful scenery, and just focus on what people are actually doing with the UI:

List of use cases
Here’s my list of what people are doing on Google Glass:

show the time
record video
send message via voice
start video conference
search Google images
get the weather
take a picture
get directions on a map
get flight details
translate “delicious” to Thai
look up something on wikipedia
share a photo

(Of course, it should be noted that part of why they are creating this new developer preview is so that more apps can get written- but in that case, it’s fancy technology looking for a use case)

Glass versus phone (or other cheaper wearable devices)
The biggest issue with the above use cases just aren’t significantly better with a computer attached to your face rather than the computer you carry in your pocket. Most of these are basically simple things you can already do on your phone- checking the weather, the time, etc. There’s a small collection of things I’m convinced will be a lot worse, like searching for stuff or sending texts to people, because voice input is still weak. And then there’s a small set of things, like taking POV photos or looking up maps, where Glass can really offer a better experience. Are those enough?

Voice sucks as the primary input
In particular I’m skeptical of voice as the primary input. I think it’ll doom the product in the same way that horrible handwriting recognition doomed the Apple Newton. The state of the art on voice input, frankly, really sucks on both Android and iOS. Have you tried to compose a message that wasn’t “ok” or “coming home” via voice? Especially in a noisy cafe or on the bus? Plus people are going to seem like crazy folks, talking to themselves over and over again, trying to coax their devices to do what they want.

(You can easily do an experiment on this by trying to do everything on your phone without touch for a while- you won’t last long, it’s super frustrating)

It may be that they have some new magic voice capabilities they’ll release as part of Glass, yet at the same time, wouldn’t they bring it to the 500 million Android devices first? And if the magical voice capabilities on smartphones get better, won’t it erode the differentiation of using the devices versus Glass?

I hope it works
Ultimately, my final point on this is that I hope it all works. I haven’t used Google Glass yet, and will be really excited to try it out. I hope it works. But rather than being wowed by just the idea of wearable glasses, I think it’s important to start talking about developing the actual use cases. How will people interact with this thing that will make it an amazing experience? Especially in the context of all the other wearable computing devices we’re sure to carry with us- phone, watch, Fitbit, Nike bands, etc. And those are the kinds of questions we’ll need to answer to really push the next generation of devices forward, rather than just make really awesome gadget porn.

Like this post?
Get new updates via newsletter..

http://doriandargan.com/ Dorian Dargan

Agreed.

I think many people are excited about it because of the potential for the idea. But I’m not convinced the market is ready for this yet. Besides the fact that no one can afford this, people will get frustrated by the limitations of Glass, and revert to using their smartphones.

And since we’re talking about a mobile product, especially one that likely will be most used in cities, noise pollution will make Glass’s voice input a very frustrating, loud and repetitive user experience.

I will also step out on a limb and say that Google will NOT be the one who creates the product that takes the market in this space.

But I’m excited for where this will go…
http://doriandargan.com/ Dorian Dargan

Quick typo, FYI:

“In what tasks is the Google Glass better a smartphone?”
should be…
“In what tasks is the Google Glass better THAN a smartphone?
http://twitter.com/srikrishnang Srikrishnan Ganesan

“The state of the art on voice input, frankly, really sucks on both Android and iOS.”
Android does reasonably better, but hey, can’t still depend on it!
Agree that voice input overall cramps it.

Touch input on smartphones does enable many experiences that cannot be replaced with voice input (especially on the consumption/entertainment/games front), which puts glass at a disadvantage if you think of them as competing experiences.

However, if you look at glass as complementing tech when on the move, I think one place where it will definitely score would be in terms of how it could reduce inertia in image-lead input (for AR, reverse image search, OCR type use cases).
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

Thanks, fixed.
http://twitter.com/teds027 Ted Sindzinski

When I first saw Tony Stark talking to Jarvis in Iron Man I was all but screaming how much I wanted AI assistants but voice in your home is a far cry from voice in the outside world. Just look at the adoption of siri or even headsets for calls — most people are hard pressed to use them in close proximity to others and when they do we all turn our heads and generally scowl.

Leave a tech hub where you have meaningful penetration of voice devices and this is even more apparent… I certainly don’t need people in starbucks issuing page turn commands.

Even from just the screenshots I’m sure the visuals will win people’s interest quickly but the price is just too high for anyone not to consider objection points. v5 at best…
katzgrau

It’s brand new — and when something is brand new, it’s hard to come up with great use cases that are outside the bounds of what is already possible. A lot of people didn’t think the computer would be good for anything other than being a big calculator.

Google Glass just seems like a smartphone that you wear on your face.

The real use cases will emerge over time as developers and those with imaginations get a chance to play with it.
http://www.entelo.com/ John McGrath

An issue I think we’ll have, whether Glass takes off now or later, is that it’ll be that much harder to tell if a person is present. Are you paying attention, or are you skimming Twitter?

For all we know the model on the catwalk above is watching a pirated episode of Game of Thrones. Not a big deal when the task at hand is walking back and forth, but could be very intrusive at other times. Teachers are gonna *hate* this.
http://twitter.com/benjaminlmoore Ben Moore

To have the features of a smartphone in an “always on” HUD sounds great. Phones seems much more of a peripheral than what Google are trying to achieve with Glass. Also to speculate, it seems unlikely Google would try a highly anticipated product launch following years of R&D and just stick their existing Android NLP on there, give them some credit
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

Yes, and I hope the category of wearable computing works out. But the point of my article is that I’m skeptical that v1 will be a success for exactly the reasons why you’re saying- the guys that created the first popular computers (Commodore, MITS, Amiga, etc.) didn’t become the ones to really nail it and make the category a huge success. It was later folks who launched refined versions that make it work. In the same way, I think Glass v1 will be a dud but maybe 5 years from now, someone else will do something interesting. Maybe that someone else will be Google if they stick to it.
http://twitter.com/andyidsinga andyidsinga

if on day it only
1) records awesome video
2) allows the wearer to send a voice message
3) gets the comms right to do 1 & 2 seamlessly (via buffering + wifi or cell)

..it will be awesome (and better than the newton).

fun times.
http://twitter.com/andyidsinga andyidsinga

the whole market isn’t ready – but the early adopters are ..and thats whats needed first.
http://twitter.com/ideanims rajan

I actually thought Glass would become a powerful teaching aid and bring a lot more content to the student in real time. I have seen kids staring at the teacher lost in thought.
http://www.simplerna.com H2

Other than the high price, the eye-strain from the Glass and poor voice recognition will limit its use to a very tiny demographic.
katzgrau

Yep — but Google Glass isn’t the first of its kind. Just like the Newton preceded the iPad, plenty of other wearable VR glasses had been demo’d in the past decade.

I think Glass has got wheels, and the technology that previous prototypes didn’t have has been commoditized.

I also wonder if the high price tag is really just an effort to get people to appreciate it a bit more. If they were $100, it’s easy for influential bloggers to get their hands on them and say “These things suck!”

If it’s $1500, more than your macbook/pc, it’s psychologically harder to think they suck (mainly because you spent $1500 on them).
http://twitter.com/andyidsinga andyidsinga

re In what tasks does Google Glass actually perform better than a smartphone?

I think this question is *totally* wrong (in a friendly argumentative way though :) ).

I know a lot of PC people who asked the same kinds of questions about tablets.
I think the question someone asks must be more along the lines of “does this device do a good job at X for me”. …the answer might be “no, my phone|pc|smartwatch does better at X”.
Gary Moore

You’re getting caught up in the form factor and not the technology. Sure the Newton is no long around but the world is moving to tablets [after all the newton was just an early version of the tablet]. The same thing will likely happen with ‘glass’ the form factor is going to evolve – but the technology is here to stay.
http://rafer.tumblr.com rafer

I would go with Creative River instead of the Newton. It’ll sell, but not be a break out.
Ted Sbardella

It’s creepy… way creepier than the Newton. Its more of Segway.. Tourists and cops will wear them
http://loneplacebo.com/ Tony Hue

I agree with your points about focusing on the use cases for Google Glass. There’s a risk of it becoming a novelty product used by only the tech elite.

Another point that I thought that should be mentioned and I’ve seen it elsewhere is the concern about privacy. With everyone these days carrying a camera in their pockets wherever they go, it’s almost impossible for an event or moment to go uncaptured. Glass would completely change that paradigm. People would become wary walking along the streets and seeing someone wearing Glass. Is that guy recording my actions? Who has access to the data that is recorded?

Until that concern is addressed, I doubt there’s much of a dying chance for Glass to make the huge impact it could introduce.
u_fail

1. its not meant to replace the phone but be complimentary

2. there’s a touchpad on the side of the device. Its the same as a watch just a more convenient display.

3. as an android user I’d argue about voice commands, but I guess thats subjective.

4. you’re a different generation, the younger kids share every thought, picture and video on twitter, facebook, etc.. with no problem and make no differentiation between online and real life
http://cescvilanova.com/ Cesc Vilanova

+1

Amazing technology but doesn’t seem to respond to a particular and validated user need.

This doesn’t mean it’s not possible to solve problems with it, but we are already investing 500$ in portable technology.

As you mention, considering the use cases they are showing until now, it seems to me that its success will depend on if its capable of substituting the smartphone, rather than complementing it.
Michael Schmidt

I’am sceptic too, but i think the next big thing for this overdosed gadget is augmented reality blackhat spam/ads and games. Voice is the creepiest (bad word) feature and I hate this option.

Random fact: you can’t wear google glasses in grrrmany, the most poeple here think, this “thing from another world” kill your privacy and steal your soul.
Jordan Hart

Funny you mention use cases. I’m sure that’s why they focused their social media campaign (http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-one/) around just that. They had people hash tag #ifihadglass and say what they would do with it. My application included using it to monitor my quadcopters’ vision while riding my bike (https://plus.google.com/111996520527962940368/posts/B5g8Jh7P1wz).

The use cases for Augmented Reality are endless, and I think, good sir, you will eat your words within 3 years. I agree that V1 will relatively suck, but you are mistaken in judging the adoption of augmented reality. Mechanics can use Augmented Reality as an overlay guide to fixing a car. Audio recognition, hand gesture recognition, eye tracking, and even brain wave recognition are going to be very powerful in the next few years, and computing is going to change rapidly.

Giving everyone access to computers changed the world, then putting computers in everyone’s pockets made us far more connected. Imagine when the display never turns off, we say that we are always connected but we are not. We still have to turn the phone on and look at it. When Google Now is always present in our vision, then we will be always connected. And it will bring us closer than ever to a mixed reality. Such a major increase in the extent to which we are cyborgs should not be so quickly dismissed.
http://doriandargan.com/ Dorian Dargan

True.
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

This is a thoughtful and well-constructed comment, but it’s a reminder on how easy it is to read a blog post but totally miss the point of it.

My whole point is that v1 will suck, but the subsequent versions could be a lot better. But more importantly, v1 will suck. I actually write sentences and sentences about how I think the category is interesting, and even the use of the Newton metaphor is to say that the v1 sucked, but eventually the iPad came.

The funny about people who are crazy optimistic about the Glass is that whatever you say about it, they take as a critique against the future of all wearable computing for all time. No, sir, I’m just talking about Glass v1 sucking when they release it this year or next.
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

My whole point is that the Newton was ahead of its time (and thus, a commercial failure). Glass is revolutionary but also I’m leaning towards commercial failure.
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

Well, it’s good they asked those questions about tablets, and it turns out there are good answers in the case of tablets. They’re light, you can read them in bed. They are better on the sofa. More social since there isn’t a big computer screen between you and others in a meeting. Etc., etc. Still looking for those answers on Google Glass.
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

I think this is just another example of how people get excited about Google Glass without actually talking about any of the killer use cases or why it’s worth the $1500 (or $500 or whatever price it’ll be). The answer is always, “it’ll be awesome! You just wait! People will find out ways to use it!”

Reminds me of Google Wave.
http://twitter.com/andyidsinga andyidsinga

you’re right – but 10 years ago those answers weren’t so clear …except to the early adopters and people making tablets :) .

I think the same is sort of the case for glass today. The video / “capture your life” use case is quite compelling for some people. Its much less obtrusive than a phone and its hands free.
http://www.dangoldin.com Dan Goldin

Interesting thoughts. I think the value will be with the “Google Now” like integration. The idea is that if it fulfills the above scenarios passively it’s much more useful than having to get your phone every time it vibrates.
http://twitter.com/joanojr John Noren

Bluetooth headsets were ‘better’ and ‘more useful’ as well, but they never lost the stigma of looking like a tool. No wonder all of Google’s PR for Glass has models wearing them :=)
http://twitter.com/jesusramirezs Jesus Ramirez

That is because you are thinking in Google Glass as a device to connect people, like a phone, and people to the internet, like a smartphone.

Google Glass is also to connect people with things and for people to make things communicate with other things. For example: I love Sifteo cubes. I wonder what would be the playing and learning possibilities of devices like the Sifteo cubes put together with Google Glasses and augmented reality.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Francesco-Ferrazzino/100001467532833 Francesco Ferrazzino

I believe you forgot the use case of playing video games with google glasses. Why google launched ingress before glasses?
http://twitter.com/andyidsinga andyidsinga

i love your comment Jesus. ive been thinking similar things : how might a mechanic or artist use glass with the object they interact with regularly?
http://www.agonydude.com/ Agony Dude

“If You’re Not Embarrassed By The First Version Of Your Product, You’ve Launched Too Late” – Reid Hoffman.

So it’s not Jordan Hart who’s a fanatic, it’s you who’s completely missing the point, sir. It’s funny about people who mint such nonsensical blog post that counter the progressive thinking just so that they can garner some eyeballs. I came to read this post, completely attracted by the blog title, expecting a strong case study of how and why Google Glass might not work. But you played it very safe. Obviously, the v1 will suck. So what’s the point of this post? Disappointed.
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

Not true, the iPhone 1 was a huge commercial success from the get go. It sold 1 million units in the first 3 months. The iPad v1 was a commercial success too, as was the Kindle. My point is that Google Glass isn’t in this category of products – it’s in with the Newton, the Segway, and products like that.
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

Yeah, if they can get the passive stuff working well, so that you don’t need too much input, that would help a lot. That said, based on my experience using Google Now, it seems like it’s not enough yet.
http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

Yes, but will millions of people are ready to pay $500 to play with a Sifteo-integrated Google Glass mechanism? I get that you’ll say that it’s just one use case, but that’s my whole point- what’s the major use case? With the iPhone it’s clear. It’s in the name. It’s a phone. And RIM/Palm/etc also proved that people cared about messaging, calendars, contacts, etc. So the iPhone value prop was clear. What’s the Glass value prop?
http://www.agonydude.com/ Agony Dude

You said, “My point is that Google Glass isn’t in this category of products – it’s in with the Newton, the Segway, and products like that.” If you try to update that sentence on Wikipedia, people will tag it with “Citation needed”. In short, it’s just your opinion.
Moreover, you’re eating your own words because you wrote, “My whole point is that v1 will suck, but the subsequent versions could be a lot better. But more importantly, v1 will suck.” So on one hand you say it falls in the category of Segway and then counter it by saying that your whole point is that v1 will suck, but v5 can be good. So are you still waiting for Segway v5? I don’t get it.
So if the crux of your whole post is that v1 will suck, then I agree, even Reid Hoffman agrees.
Please decide what you want to convey:

1. Google Glass falls in Newton, Segway category and hence is doomed to fail.
2. Google Glass v1 will suck, but subsequent version can be good.
Jordan Hart

That may have been your main point, but it was certainly not all you said. And even if I do agree with your main point, that doesn’t mean I have to accept all the others. Here is the point I took issue with:
“The biggest issue with the above use cases just aren’t significantly better with a computer attached to your face rather than the computer you carry in your pocket. ”

I believe that you are underestimating how powerful and useful Augmented Reality is, and how much and quickly it will change the world.

You see little advantage of AR over a smartphone, and I think within 3 years when you look back at this blog post you will wonder how you could ever have thought that.

And I’m not speaking of all wearable computing, sure wearable computing as a whole will blow up in about 3 years. But AR will get big before that as an extension of smartphones. And having a non stop data feed as a part of your vision will go down as a turning point in history.

Also consider Google’s long term goals. How do you get more time on device from users? Drive for them and stick a display in their vision non stop. Now they have plenty of times to surf around and click ads. Version 1 sucking is of near 0 significance in what is really going on here.
Jordan Hart

The risk is a good point, but that doesn’t mean it won’t have impact. Look at Google Maps, sure there were lawsuits, sure it was weird, but it happened. We see that over and over again. Consumers have continually given away their privacy in exchange for convenience.

Great point though, the long term consequences of putting our whole lives online have yet to be fully reaped. It will be interesting. What of presidential candidates 20 years from now whose entire lives are out on the net?
Jordan Hart

Google has said that Glass will cost about as much as an Android smartphone. The $1500 price tag is to get it early, and get into a special event they put on for you in SF, LA or NYC.
Jordan Hart

I think he’s saying that Glass is ahead of its time, like the Newton or Segway, rather than the Kindle which came at just the right time. That may or may not be true, either way I’m sure Google just wants to popularize AR for long term goals.

But you’re right to point out that that’s more than just saying V1 will suck. He’s going further and saying that the market really isn’t ready for it. Of course this is ahead of its time. But it’s also harder to say these days, time is moving faster than ever.
http://twitter.com/artingu Martin Gumucio

Its a product that is good for you and great for the google business model. The EU is probably going to force them to add a giant red light that shines whenever you are using it to record video.
http://MatthewStone.com/ Matt Stone

With technology where it is right now I’m surprised no one has come up with a clip on mini cam with Bluetooth and an app. Surely that is a less glam option for those people who can’t or don’t want to pay $1500 for the glasses. They already use this technology in ski goggles http://bit.ly/Y2a08g
http://www.facebook.com/cyrus.adkisson Cyrus Adkisson

Google maps was the best from day 1 and had several distinctly useful use cases.

True dat.

Double true.
http://estrategypro.com/ eStrategyPro

v1 is started by Google. But v5 may end up created by Apple. Apple has a habit of letting other companies do the hard work of testing and failing before sweeping the market with a refined version of the same thing that appeal to the masses. E.g. iPod is not the first MP3 player. iPhone is not the first smartphone. iPad is not the first tablet computer.
http://twitter.com/jesusramirezs Jesus Ramirez

It is not clear to me that the value proposition of the iPhone is to be a phone. I think this is just part of the execution of a wider idea. The same for Google Glass. The first uses people imagine are look cool, view data and take photos…. just execution or the whole idea, connecting people, Internet and things.

@andrewchen