Now that Google has pulled Glass off the market, for the time being at least, we’re left with a handful of questions that can’t be easily answered — even by a face-mounted computer.
Questions like, “What went wrong?” And, “What didn’t go wrong?” And, perhaps most enlightening of all, “How would Apple have gotten Glass right?”
While Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior VP of worldwide marketing, was not a fan of Glass, we’re certain Cupertino could have found success with a head-mounted wearable. Here’s how.
Apple’s design genius
No matter how well Google Glass worked, a sizable portion of would-be adopters would never wear it on the basis that it looked so … well, dorky. Glasses might be making a comeback thanks to thick-frame-wearing hipster types, but Google’s never been a company that places much emphasis on aesthetics or design.
That’s fine — possibly even great, when you’re offering a straight-to-the-point service such as Internet search. In the wake of cluttered “search portal” services like Yahoo, Google’s blank minimalism was a godsend to Web users back in late ’90s. While Steve Jobs spent weeks or even months agonizing over the right furniture to buy for his house, there’s something endearing about the fact that Google’s logo was quickly created by one of its CEOs messing around in Photoshop.
That approach doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about tech the world is going to spend more time looking at than even the smartphone in your pocket, however. Google tried to make Glass fashionable by teaming up with fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg to launch a line of frames that looked more like high-end eyewear and less like a sci-fi prop the Borg would wear in Star Trek.
This fashion push felt more like a last-ditch effort than something that was part of Google’s concept from the start, though. Apple, on the other hand, barely needs to mention its design credentials, so deeply are they ingrained in the company’s DNA. Cupertino is filled to the brim with designers like Jony Ive and Marc Newson, plus fashion industry execs like Angela Ahrendts.
Apple wouldn’t have muddied the waters by showing us an unfinished prototype and then trying to reverse-engineer a fashionable element on top of that. It would have built something gorgeous the first time around, and only showed it off when it was ready.
As shallow as it sounds, for a lot of regular consumers that would have been the difference between a tech laughingstock and a must-have gadget.
Apple would have picked its moment
Apple has been able, time and again, to seize the exact right moment to release new products. With genius-level timing, Cupertino avoids the early adopter hype cycle while not arriving so late to the party that everyone else has already moved on.
Typically, Apple will allow a few companies to enter a given space and make mistakes, then swoop in on that unofficial bit of market research and ruthlessly exploit it. Google never did this with Glass, and as a result looked like a company figuring out what it was doing as it went along. For a core group of techie customers, that’s a very admirable trait — but it’s not the way to convince the masses.
Apple would have timed its entry much better. And, once committed, Cupertino would have spelled out exactly why we should care about augmented reality to begin with. Which is something Google still hasn’t done.
Apple’s not creepy
From being overly conservative with its App Store to launching the occasionally misjudged music giveaway, Apple’s certainly not immune to criticism. However, when’s the last time you heard someone call out Apple for being creepy? Probably never, because Apple’s business model is completely different from that of data-hungry companies like Google and Facebook.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook told Charlie Rose in a 2014 interview, making Apple’s position on personal data clear. “I think everyone has to ask, ‘How do companies make their money?’ Follow the money. And if they’re making money mainly by collecting gobs of personal data, I think you have a right to be worried and you should really understand what’s happening with that data.”
What does this have to do with Google Glass? Simple: People didn’t especially trust Google to begin with, and this was followed by dozens of alarming stories about the innate creepiness of Glass and the potential abuses of features like facial recognition.
As noted, Apple controls its App Store with an iron fist, which means that troublesome apps or ethically questionable features would have been stamped out from the start.
Embracing the Apple ecosystem
Augmented reality offers many possibilities for app makers. Even in its embryonic stages, Google Glass saw its fair share of them — from apps designed to help the hard of hearing by creating real-time conversation subtitles to language apps that can carry out handy translations of signs and other printed texts.
Apple is still the first choice for developers, and an Apple version of Glass would be able to draw on this to extend the wearable’s functionality over time.
What I’d be more excited about in the short term, however, is the possibility of using Apple’s Glass to interface with the company’s other devices. We know, for instance, that Apple has taken out multiple patents for Minority Report-style interfaces, which would offer new ways of interfacing with your Mac beyond the existing mouse and keyboard.
Having the ability to use your Google Glass-style headpiece seamlessly with your iPhone, Apple Watch and, going forward, HomeKit-enabled devices would have been compelling. There were some examples of this, but ultimately Apple was never going to fully embrace a device it wasn’t building itself.
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
9 responses to “How Apple would have made Google Glass a success”
….people still own iPhone 4, and iPhone 3gs
To be honest, Glass is just ahead of its time. Apple found out that cost with Newton…
Good parallel. That was probably the last time Apple jumped into a new market where no previous precedent had been set. It turned out to be a great device by the time the product line ended in the late 90s, but it’s reputation was already damaged by early failure.
The Newton was just one of the product lines that were discontinued when Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1998. Other products like the Performa line and the original Power Macintosh, were discontinued.
Steve Jobs’ intention was to focus the company sharply on fewer, and better designed products, to make the company more financially viable.
The Performa products were replaced with the first iMac, and the Power Macintosh was replaced by the Power Mac G4.
And in the end, what Apple wanted to build was the iPad, but they couldn’t do it cheaply enough, so they shrunk it to a phone. Now, Glass or a face computer, maybe all the guts are actually already in the Apple Watch, but they need to put it on your wrist for now. On your face may come later when they can miniaturise it even more, and make the battery last all day.
It’s not a matter of Glass being “ahead of its time”… It’s just that wearing a computer on your face is offensive to others, and counter-productive.
No one likes talking to someone, whether a stranger or a friend, with a computer on their face, with a camera pointed at you.
For example, walking into a public bathroom while wearing your Glass is NOT socially acceptable.
Also, no one wants to converse with someone who is being distracted by what they are seeing in Glass.
Getting into a car and driving while wearing your Glass is dangerous.
In fact, no one needs to wear a computer on their face. Especially if it is only useful for short instances during the day.
These are just a few reasons, amongst many, why Apple chose to do a wearable for the wrist, rather than a wearable for the face.
It is no wonder that Google has given up on Glass. The real wonder is why did they ever think that it was a viable product in the first place, and spend billions of dollars to find that out.
Yeah, infinite years ahead of its time.
The premise is all wrong. We can only talk of “how Apple might have done Google Glass if it did Google Glass”, but the fact is, Apple chose not to do a Google Glass because they realized from the get-go that it is a flawed product concept. Apple might have done it better but it would still fail. And they know that. That’s why they didn’t bother.
This focus on fashion and how it makes the user look is misplaced. Get it in your heads, the problem with Google Glass is not one of getting potential users to accept it. The problem is getting the people who will find themselves around said user to accept it. No matter how good it makes you look or how great it works, if people get ostracized (ok, hyperbolé) every time they use it outside their homes, they won’t use it.
That’s exactly what happened with Segway.
If it was Apple Glass, it would be flying off the shelf with support worldwide and the demand for AG would be tremendous.