back to article Google Glass: Even the people who stand to MAKE MONEY from it hate the techno-specs

Google Glass has lost more than a bit of its momentum since the project was unveiled in 2012 – on Friday it was claimed that even developers building apps for the techno-goggles are giving up. Reuters reported that it spoke with 16 developers and found that more than half had abandoned their plans to write software for the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think Google has given up on Glass

    They might bring it back in a few years, sort of like how Microsoft had a "try, try again" mindset when it came to tablets in the pre-iPad days, but if they were really going to push it they'd have introduced the mass market version already.

    There's definitely a niche market of people who really really like Glass, but it is so small there's no money to be made, and no interest from developers in going after such a small number of people.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: I think Google has given up on Glass

      It does make one wonder doesn't it? I suppose that if Apple brought their own, fully patent protected, version out, the things would be flying off the shelves.

      1. Frankee Llonnygog

        Re: I think Google has given up on Glass

        That's not Google Glass - that's the monkeys in the Wizard of Oz

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Mark 85

        Why, do you think just because Apple sells something people will automatically buy it? Or because Apple would do a better job of making it something an average person might want, rather than only an ubergeek?

        No one can successfully sell this product until a killer app/use for it is found that will appeal to the average person. The bar is a lot higher for it than it was for the smartphone, because everyone already carried a phone with them anyway. Most people don't wear glasses, and those that do don't need them to be any heavier, need to worry about charging them, need to worry about upgrading them, etc.

        Glass is a geek toy, nothing more. It offers the average person nothing, but Google is populated almost entirely by geeks, so of course they'd think it is a great idea. I imagine its designers remain puzzled why there isn't a pent up demand of millions of people who want to own it.

        1. Spanners Silver badge

          Re: @Mark 85 @Doug S

          The reason he thinks that is because that is what people do. If someone started a rumour today that there was a new kind if iThing, there would be people wanting it.

          That certainly has happened with wearables before such as the "iWatch" long before Apple actually got round to it.

          It happened with iPhones as well and we were all waiting for NFC to take off when Apple "invented" it but nobody had thought of the backlash from businesses. Any backlash against iGlasses is not relevant. NFC needs business use. Apple Glass wouldn't even need to do anything to look cool.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Spanners

            How is that different from other companies though? When Glass was announced and first released, all the Google fanboys were falling all over themselves because they made the floor wet with their drool. They're no different than Apple fanboys. And Microsoft fanboys will eat whatever shit they put out if it has the Windows name on it...where do you think the positive press (yes, there was some) for Windows 8 came from? Where else could sales of Zune have come from? Remember all the hype from Samsung fanboys about "eye scrolling" and how that proved they were far ahead of Apple? Do the GS5 and Note 4 still even support that....I sure haven't heard anything about it since the initial hype!

            So don't act like having a contingent of raving loonies is something exclusive to Apple. A lot of people are excited about Apple Watch because little is known about it, so fanboys are free to dream about things it might do. It is when reality strikes and what it can do is known that will determine how successful it is. While there is a small group of people who will buy it on day one just because Apple releases it, there are not nearly enough of them to make it successful. For that it'll have to stand on its own merits, just like any other product.

        2. Oninoshiko

          Re: @Mark 85

          Last I looked (just now) they are still stupid-priced. I haven't seen any serious marketing for them (honestly, until I looked I thought it was still invite-only). Combine with the fact that it makes the most anti-fashion statement ever (I mean really, it doesn't take a genius to make the boom cover the entire front so you don't look like a complete doofus), only a handful (okay, maybe it's some pretty large hands) would ever sell.

          Without any kind of promise of a userbase, of course developers are going to not waste time on it. I know people think writing code is all about heart, but honestly, most developers still have families to feed.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I think Google has given up on Glass

      Glass is Rosenberg's baby, so as long as Brin+Rosenberg are sitting in a tree, I'm sure Glass will continue.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I think Google has given up on Glass

      Not quite, they are probably now working on Google implants.

      1. Ginolard

        Re: I think Google has given up on Glass

        I hope they rename themselves Booble in that case

  2. Bloodbeastterror

    "poor hardware specs"...?

    Isn't this where people usually follow with "no pun..."?

  3. Charles 9

    Need we mention how UGLY those specs were. There was serious doubt they could shrink everything at this point such that you couldn't tell them from ordinary glasses. At least smart watches look like watches at first glance.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not if the screen is on. I've seen some people with (non-eInk) smartwatches and it looks like they have a flashlight strapped to their wrist. Not great.

  4. Chris G

    No Specs

    Perhaps Google would have better luck if they built everything into a prosthetic eyebrow or a baseball cap that would work whether it's on forwards or backwards.

    Most people have eyebrows and millions of people wear baseball caps, anything that attracts attention will always get some bad attention from someone.

    However, if people think you are spying on them with almost anything other than a moby camera prepare for some dissent.

    Oh wait a minute! they could make millions of units and sell them if they disguised Google glass to look like a mobile phone, nobody would pay it any attention and everyone would buy one.

    Think of the apps you could download into it and the amazing things you could achieve like asking it questions or being able to see where you are going.

    Just remember, I thought of it first!

    1. Goobertee

      Re: No Specs

      I want a prosthetic eyebrow. Something in an asymmetric Groucho Marx.

      And a corrective hat.

  5. Eddy Ito

    It was an interesting hackneyed effort at getting others to dump serious dosh in developing a non-starter; a bit like Apple watch. For those not paying attention, the cold war has officially landed in the tech sphere.

  6. Christian Berger

    It cannot be done by Google, it cannot be done now...

    Google is restrained by its mindset to centrally process and store every Shannon of information it can get about you. This is how Google works.

    However this is not how we want our glasses to work. They are primarily supposed to be working for us. They are supposed to store their data locally or on servers I own and they are supposed to do what _I_ want them to do.

    For this we'd also have to have computer literacy. People would have to be able to understand computers. We are not at that point now and we may actually move away from that point.

    Mayb, just like in the 1970s and early 1980s, we should first look at specialist markets. We should build computers in the hundreds, so we can experiment with them, without being limited by marketing. That way computer literate people can have such devices and find out ways in which they could be used sensibly. We'd need sensible ways to work together with little communication, just like Unix enabled us to do.

  7. Monty Burns

    $1500

    "The coders cited reasons such as a lack of customer interest"

    Damn straight! At $1500 for a toy, I'm not interested....

    1. Dr. Mouse

      Re: $1500

      That's the only reason I haven't bought them*.

      I'd love a pair*, but £1000 for a toy just isn't justifiable. If I had them, I would have developed several apps already, as I can see a fair number of use cases. I am not put off by how "geeky" they look, just in how useful they can be. Let's face it, I had a smartphone before they were considered cool (Had Symbian S60 and UIQ phones, they were awesome at the time). People laughed at me for having such a big, bulky phone when everyone else was going for the smallest they could get.

      They need to bring the costs down to an affordable level before they even see a large developer base, IMHO. £500 would seem reasonable (although still outside of my toy-buying budget, I'd be tempted to save up).

      1. Dr. Mouse

        Re: $1500

        Drat, just missed the edit window when I realised I forgot this bit:

        * I will continue to use the plural, as they are glasses, and using the singular just sounds/looks wrong.

  8. DarkWalker

    Price and appearance

    As soon as I can get one that looks like common (if bulky) glasses and is reasonably affordable I will do so, even if I have to write my own apps.

    Until then, my wearable of choice will be a smartwatch. Though not an Apple one; I see any device that I can't root and take full control of as merely a toy.

  9. Jimbo in Thailand

    It's the damn camera...

    I've mentioned this before but gotta say it again... Go_ogle definitely screwed up by including a camera. Almost all of the anti-Google-Glass fervor for this otherwise interesting device is due to the inclusion of the 3rd eye. None of us want to be photographed or videoed up close and personal WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE or CONSENT. Obviously not only will many "Glassholes" abuse the feature but just think of all the perverts out there.

    Amazingly the solution to the massive backlash is just too simple. All the boffins at the Chocolate Factory have to do to calm the fears of the great unwashed masses is to release a new version without this heinous spy feature. Of course, since Go_ogle's raison d'etre is to track all of our activities 24/7 that probably won't happen.

    But there is such irony here. Just think about it for a second. We are all concerned with Glassholes spying on us but, in fact, the Glassholes themselves are really the intended targets. After all, each time they switch on the device they are being continuously tracked by Go_ogle. But when they switch on the camera... OMG... it allows Go_ogle to monitor them in a much more personal way because they can see what the Glasshole sees. Obviously that's why Google included the camera in the first place. It's damn scary when you think about it.

    Google - The great Trojan Horse of the 21st century. And all this time we thought they were proudly proclaiming their mission to be: "DO NO EVIL". Sadly, we didn't listen correctly. In fact, they were saying they "DO KNOW EVIL". Run and hide!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's the damn camera...

      Thing is, Google probably need the camera so they can creepily view what you are viewing to 'better target their advertisers messages'

      Shudder. No thanks. Lets mark Google Glass down as yet another Google fail.

  10. RyokuMas
    FAIL

    Oh the hypocracy...

    Still can't get over the way that last point in the "do/don't" list starts with "respect other's privacy" - a phrase involving a pot and a kettle springs to mind...

    However, it's almost a shame that the glass didn't catch on a bit better before people realised what an absolute invasion of privacy it is - it would have made it so much easier for the general public to have then made the connection that spying on people is central to the Google business model and thus got some proper outcry going...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like