Flaws in Google Glass, proving wearable technology can fail

GOOGLE’S eyewear looks like going the way of Betamax video while Sony prepares to launch its own version.

Google Glass at the 2014 Tech Expo in the Darwin Convention Centre.

MEMO to Apple and Android smartwatch makers: the demise of Google Glass shows wearable technology can fail, even when made by mega companies.

If a device doesn’t have a major single purpose and is somewhat geeky, as Glass is, the public will not assign it valuable real estate on nose or arm. The iPhone makes calls and the iPod plays music. Glass does lots of things, but what is its raison d’etre?

Glass may not be entirely dead, but the idea you’ll wear Glass as a second skin while driving, in theatres, walking the streets or playing sport is. Copycat products are carving out what market is there. (Sony is commissioning apps for its SmartEyeglass, due out next year - see link below.)

The end of public sales of Google Glass was announced last month. Google was at pains to say that the product was not dead but going through a “transition” and that the Google Glass team was “continuing to build for the future”.

But the announcement has left in the lurch several Australian developers producing apps for Glass. Townsville’s SafetyCulture developed a Glass app that let wearers dictate memos, take hands-free video and complete menu-driven safety inspections and audits. It was an adaptation of its iAuditor software.

Chief executive Luke Anear says Glass app development was an intern program at the firm with two interns and two senior software engineers. It ran for a year from November 2013. “Over the course of that year we were taking it to customers all around the world.”

British Airways was one of the companies approached. The app allowed flight safety officers to complete a checklist while inspecting aircraft. SafetyCulture also approached Walmart in the US, Virgin Trains in Britain and Qantas. They tested prolonged use while driving on Germany’s autobahns to see if Glass interfered with vision and thought processes.

“The wow factor of Google Glass was extremely high, it was this new sci-fi tech,” Anear says.

But in that 12 months, no one signed up. “Glass was very hard to get hold of, which made it difficult for people to test what we were building,” he says.

There were also limitations on Glass’s usefulness. It was valuable where users worked hands-free in high-risk environments. They could use voice to fetch information and take snaps of their field of view. But those circumstances were limited, he says.

Then there was a surprising turn of events.

“Around halfway through the Google Glass development project the Android watches started coming through and once we started to build iAuditor on to the Android watch we immediately saw the practicality of something that is already on your body.”

The smartwatch usurped the hands-free usefulness of Glass. “I think Google Glass doesn’t have enough benefits above hands-free videos and photos,” Anear says.

He says SafetyCulture has spent about $150,000 on its now defunct Glass app. If Glass made a comeback, he would “pause” the project until there was stronger customer interest.

Not everyone is disillusioned. Small World Social prototyped a Glass app that let a breastfeeding mum talk to a counsellor. The counsellor could watch the activity close-up and offer advice instantly. Project leader Madeline Sands says the company’s time with Glass definitely wasn’t a waste. “I think there are so many great applications it could be used for.”

IntecGroup produced an app that popped-up old photos of Adelaide on Glass as people walked down the street. Quality assurance analysts at Intec Stephen Mee says he hopes Glass will return as a better product.

But whether enough developers will return with enthusiasm to a revamped Google Glass product remains to be seen.