3 ms·
It failed because it was designed backwards by starting with the most impressive screen/camera/chipset possible and then unsurprisingly ended up with shit batte
by Steko 11y ago
It failed because it was designed backwards by starting with the most impressive screen/camera/chipset possible and then unsurprisingly ended up with shit battery life. That is a deal breaker on a wearable who's killer apps are things like lifecasting and personal security.
The correct way to design a device like this is to start with battery life required and work forward with that as your primary constraint. If what you end up with isn't good enough you don't release the product and wait until more power efficient chips or better battery tech comes out.
- tracker1 11y agoI would have loved to try it, but I'm far sighted and anything closer than 2' from my face is blurry, I don't wear corrective lenses most of the time, and even if I did, google didn't have a solution for this. I can think of a lot of scenarios where glass would have been a fit (if they got the cost down to even $500/pair)... the ability to have a context aware helper screen would work in a lot of scenarios... from parts pickers, to manufacturing, to presentations. Most of the ideas I have around google glass are pretty boring, but could really boost productivity in a lot of areas commercially, and this is probably where they should have started. If you are paying someone $35k/year to do a job, and they could be 5-10% more effective with a given tool, that tool would be well worth $1000-1500. And I can think of a lot of jobs that pay over $12-15/hr that could be assisted/improved with this.