Google relieved to ditch device tailored for 'Glass-holes'

Last week's announcement by Google that it was suspending production of Google Glass was, ironically, a step forward for the search giant.

Last week's announcement by Google that it was suspending production of Google Glass was, ironically, a step forward for the search giant.

The "smart glasses" that would supposedly lead the revolution in wearable computers turned out to be the worst possible argument for investing in the industry. The Google Glass Explorer Edition, as the device was known, sold for an eye-watering $1500 - a few units were sold in South Africa for an absurd R27000 - to a few tens of thousand people.

Seldom, however, has such an expensive status symbol led to such a powerful backlash. From pricing to privacy to fashion, Glass failed on too many levels to make up for the advance it represented in portable computing.

For Google, it must have been a relief to walk away from the debate. It no longer needs to convince people that cyborg is a good look, and it can stop worrying about the public relations fallout from offensive social behaviour by "Glass-holes".

This column suggested about two years ago that Glass "makes the user look like a 20th-century watchmaker, and turns anyone in the vicinity of the user into a privacy-obsessed paranoiac". Things only got worse as its wearers realised how ridiculous they looked in the device, and slowly began to abandon it.

The truth is, it's been obvious since Glass was launched in 2012 that it would not represent a consumer breakthrough. For very specific applications, such as the devices Epson makes for aircraft maintenance, among other specialist areas, smart glasses have a role. As long as they don't go out in public.

There are two fundamental reasons Glass was doomed to failure. For one, someone who doesn't need to wear glasses suddenly has to appear to be visually challenged.

For another, those who do have to wear glasses tend to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find frames that make them comfortable looking into mirrors. Despite a few dozen variations at a premium price, the default was one-size-fits-all.

In short, damned if you do wear glasses, damned if you don't.

And yet, halting production was good news. But not because, as Google tried to spin it, Glass was moving out of the Google X experimental incubator into an independent division.

It's great news because Google has built up a treasure trove of learning from the experiment, and will incorporate these into the thinking that guides new products and services.

It has learnt, for example, that wearable computing should not be intrusive computing. It should enhance the computing lives of users without damaging their social lives. That means that its appearance must be a non-issue, which in turn means that it must blend into existing apparel, or complement it.

It is unlikely, therefore, to produce bulky smart watches, even as its Android Wear operating system powers most of these devices. Only Samsung and Apple insist on making smart watches that work exclusively with their own smartphones.

Google may well venture into health and fitness applications. Medicine is one area where Glass showed huge potential, assisting in remote consultation and even surgery. The exploding demand for fitness bands, like the Fitbit range and the Sony Smartband Talk, shows that there is a bright future in health-related wearable technology.

The technology that underpinned Glass will, no doubt, find a far happier home on the wrist.

Arthur Goldstuck is founder of World Wide Worx and editor-in-chief of Gadget.co.za Follow him on Twitter on @art2gee