Google Glass’s demise
Google glass was a great idea! It certainly wasn’t a bad product too. Imagine having a device that could possibly free up your hands, eyes and ears and yet allows you to browse the internet, obtain directions to locations, receive and send text messages as well as emails, take pictures and videos, and more. Certainly, sounds like an awesome device. Sergey Brin’s vision was to bring information to people and he wanted to do so through Google Glass. However Google Glass did not perform as planned and was eventually taken out from the market.
Here are two main assumptions that led to its demise.
Assumption #1: People will use it.
Simply assuming that people would use Google Glass without validating the market prior to launch was simply a big mistake.
With Google Glass, users would have to wear a camera on their face. But would users be comfortable wearing a camera on their face every day? Wearing Google Glass makes everyone else uncomfortable as they may feel that they are being recorded or have their pictures taken. Hence it was not surprising that Google Glass was not allowed in cinemas, casinos, bars, restaurants and even public restrooms. The mounted camera was not a bad idea but it could be abused for the wrong reasons. In addition, there were not many user affordance on its relatively small screen.
Whenever users wanted Google Glass to perform a certain task, users would have to say “Ok Google” aloud. Users could also say aloud their replies to emails and Google Glass would automatically reply those emails for them. It all sounds great and convenient but would anyone be comfortable saying their replies aloud in public and have everyone around them hear what they are saying?
Google Glass looked awkward and seemed unnatural. It was aesthetically unattractive. It somewhat looked like safety glasses that one would wear in a laboratory. Furthermore, not everyone would be comfortable with the idea of wearing a device that constantly emits carcinogenic radiation so close to the head. Would users be willing to wear such a device on their face? Perhaps not.
With that said, the team should have gone out and talked more to people in order to determine if the world was ready for such a device.
Assumption # 2: Early adopters are the right group and will have a great experience.
Google Glass’s early adopters were known as Glass Explorers and they were tech geeks and journalist. The sense of exclusivity given to these group was nice however the product did not deliver any meaningful benefits to them. They were unclear on the advantages of using the product. Hence it was only natural that tech journalists would tell everyone on what they think about Google Glass as that is the nature of their job.
If research was done right, the right early adopters would have been picked. The best early adopters are those who need the early versions of your product yesterday and who will quickly start to gain benefit from using it immediately. The team could have instead given exclusivity to professionals like pilots, doctors and truck drivers who could potentially benefit from Google Glass without using their hands.
Conclusion
Google Glass was no doubt a great idea but the team failed to understand their users. The team should have done empathy research to understand all the different views, behaviours, pains and joys of people. It is also equally imperative that they think hard about the value of their product. Will people benefit from Google Glass’s features? Is Google Glass solving an existing problem or creating a new problem? Is Google Glass able to solve those existing problems better than current existing devices? With clear answers to these questions, the team could have had more chances to succeed.
Sources
