> I think one of the big problems with glass was that they picked the wrong sort of people to be early public users

Totally agree. As awesome a technical achievement as Glass was, it was the product of 20 years of work from some very odd people (MIT's borgs) that literally wore desktop computers on their backs prototyping it, ignoring all social convention in the process. While their insights were valuable for their particular approach to wearable computing (HUD-based, data recall oriented, etc), that approach isn't the right approach for the mainstream, nor are they the right brand ambassadors.

Google's perennial issue is they're a technology factory that thinks they're a consumer company. The goto market strategy Glass should have adopted was in enterprise, where there are many valuable use cases like ones in this article, and Google could have refined it there. But Google isn't good at picking markets or any form of understanding marketing, so they decided that a bunch of geeks walking around cafes, bars, and restaurants was the right way to go. sigh

I'd be a lot more understanding if Neal Stephenson hadn't foreseen and lampooned the concept in 'Snow Crash'. Seriously, how many people on HN took one look at Google Glass and though, "Oh shit, gargoyles!"

I didn't do it until now, when I looked at the actual borgs :)

https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2012/07/15...

Google could do great in the enterprise. But they have been resistant to offering the support that companies want to buy with products they rely on.

Enterprise are really adverse to storing/sharing data outside premises

Some are, some are not. They are definitely adverse to having it mined, though. That should not be a problem for google if they are charging for the product, rather than trying to recoup costs selling the data.

All that can squarely be blamed on Sergey Brin.

I guess he let all the comparisons to Tony Stark go to his head...

> But Google isn't good at picking markets or any form of understanding marketing, so they decided that a bunch of geeks walking around cafes, bars, and restaurants was the right way to go.

Isn't Snap currently proving that the market was right, but you need a different marketing copy?

They did the same thing to Ara: interesting tech anchored by a down-market consumer agenda.

I suspect this is just bad phrasing, I imagine it should have been something closer to this:

> With Google Glass on, others around you have no idea if you're actually watching a movie or looking up sports stats rather than talking to them, which can lead to people being uncomfortable in your presence.

(And yes, to those "in the know", they will know you're not actively browsing the internet based on what you're saying and what weird eye movements you're not making.. But, they might still suspect you started that movie right before the conversation, or maybe you're getting live notifications from an in-progress game)

EDIT: However, I also totally agree with the issues around their selective public beta group..

I feel this could be a general problem with augmented reality going forward, especially for the end game where it is integrated in glasses or even contact lenses. As you say, you will realize people are not paying attention to you anymore when their eyes wander off and in general there would be this distrust in anyone to give you their full attention. At least that is how i would probably feel.

Snap tried pretty hard to set a different tone for Spectacles, but they don't seem to be doing very well either.

Spectacles never had near the awareness or hype that Google glass originally had, and the news I saw surrounding it was always overshadowed by mentioning what happened with glass. I'm not saying Glass would have succeeded otherwise, but it would have made a far better impression and not set the tone for other efforts.

Need to separate the product from the business. Spectacles, the product, is widely considered to be a hit and has received near universal praise. Snap's business meanwhile isn't as strong.

I think it's safe to say it's way too early to call it a "hit." Remember that Google Glasses were also a "hit" among bloggers and techies and other influential people. Of course in hindsight we know this was the wrong kind of attention.

Considered a hit by who? The blogosphere? They're not even selling well on eBay.

Why would they sell well? They're selling directly online now.

It's taking quite a bit of willpower to stop myself from buying a pair, and I barely use Snapchat.

Snap did a good job limiting supply and building hype for the rollout. Now that Spectacles are generally available, I have reason to believe that sales are below expectations.

They aren't? I thought their glasses sounded pretty cool. What are they like?

I dont think I've ever cared whether a person was looking at me while conversing.

I've walked out on a date because the lady in question could not break away from texting. It's only happened once but I've got better things to be doing than actively trying to miscommunicate with someone.

Or paid you any attention?