Google Glass one of Google’s largest projects has not had the results they expected; its incredible technological progress, which provided security, ability to record and take pictures to everything you see, internet access via voice commands, maps, among other excellent features.
Despite the comfort and capacity they offered, Google Glass was not satisfactory enough for many, which quickly led to its failure. These pair of high-end glasses does not curl enough, but surely there is a reason for that.
You will ask why such an innovative project could have failed in such a way. The reasons are obvious, and one of the first was its price. When launched to e-commerce, more than one impressed us the cost of $ 1500, meaning that, it was worth almost the same as a new MacBook and also double the iPhone
Even so Google, it seems, they are working to create a corporate edition, or rather, an improved version, with different premises to not make the same mistake again.
It has been more than a year since the glasses have left the public sales, another of the great reasons of its disappearance was, the controversy that it caused before the society. It was classified as ridiculous, and became a target of mockery and attacks to those who used it.
A clear example of attack has been what happened in a bar in San Francisco, where journalist Sarah Slocum was physically and verbally attacked by the use of Google Glass. This happened very often, because wearing the high-end glasses that had the ability to take pictures with just wink an eye terrified the people around them. He created distrust and discomfort for many.
Negative points of the Google Glass
It was a disappointment on the part of Google because it promised something that did not fulfill. The glasses were not augmented reality; they were simply a display that you placed in your head. Its video recording capacity only up to 720p and the number of megapixels were 5.
The durability of the battery was really disappointing. Tim Bajarin said he included a battery that lasted only 2 to 3 hours, instead of lasting 6 hours as they claimed. He also said that it was the 1500 dollars worst spent, that did not contain useful information for him and that the user interface was horrible.
Christian Van Der Henst, added that the durability of the battery in video recording was 45 minutes and that, in addition, these glasses felt very fragile.
Another negative point is that they could not be demanded much performance for a long time because, in doing so, this device was heated causing them to go crazy. This demonstrates the lack of product performance.
Also was very annoying the use of the glasses when it reflected the sunlight and the connection to Internet used to have many flaws.
Despite their shortcomings, these gadgets were very useful in various tasks, although they were always used with some smartphone; they facilitated the use of it since you did not have to look at the phone screen at any time.
It was also very useful for some medical students and medical graduates when performing surgical interventions, allowing them to observe in more detail a knee cartilage operation.
Finally, it is noteworthy that apparently Google intends to have better quality with the new Daydream VR, their new augmented reality glasses that go hand in hand with the new Google Pixel.