Fad that Never Was
Google tried its best to inject it into the world of style by showcasing in fashion shows. But people chose to associate Robert Scoble with Glass, over Diane Von Furstenberg's models; with doubt over potentially spying La Forge, over admiration for macho skydivers.
And it is of course debatable if Brin's NY subway hobo stunt was for or against this cause. It is still a new device that some nerds drool over, most get confused by and bullies certainly hate.
Public Rejection
It wasn't a surprise that it's already been banned from some private places (of public gathering). And some countries might ban it in public places like on road (while driving) and few might ban such devices all together.
Google has tried reasoning with these people by publishing facts. The camera doesn't record continuously and not without visual cue to the people around. The display isn't true Augmented Reality blocking your view but a tiny part of peripheral vision. Yada, yada. But who cares.
I won't even call these people bigoted and go around reasoning, after all, this is a very new piece of technology and it is perhaps a leap. They're probably correct too, in a way.
How to fix this?
To enter a market one needs to move a little slower matching existing things while still enhancing and innovating. If Google had spent its effort to sell an affordable (sub $300) non-camera version in 2013, by 2014, people would've accepted the camera version though with some caution and few bans.
Google has chosen the right direction by embracing wearables in general, through its Android Wear project. Google Glass is just one such wearable - specs (frame alone?), amongst watches, wrist-bands, buttons, earphones, clip-ons, embeddables (eg. in shoes, ties, keychains, jewellery, clothing) and so on; you get me - a huge part of the new buzz a.k.a Internet of Things (IoT), catapulted thanks to IPv6 and Bluetooth Low Energy.
Observe that these are different in their function and capability. Some don't even have displays; some may just be embedded sensors.
Nope, Android Wear isn't for such devices (now). Wear is just an extension of Android for accessories like a watch. May run on Google Glass with minor changes. Minimal visual output is expected and microphone / voice processing is a requirement for complex input.
Multiple Types - A glASS and a Glass
We need to have multiple types of Glass. One with the current set of features. Other without the camera and an inset thinner prism or a totally different display.
| Generic ban on 'surveillance devices' shouldn't apply to all Google Glass implementations. Given the same knowledge graph, even your phone can pretty much do all the approximated augmentation like contextual person identification without camera input!!! Google must brand and market it distinctly. |
And the version that does come with a camera must do much more with it than just act as a PoV camera. The prism needs to vanish. Inset and thin down, replace with diffraction grating or bright micro-projector & lens. |
Change 1: Non Camera Version Please
A version of Google Glass is required without inbuilt camera. This device should appear distinct from the existing Glass to the extent possible so that people don't recollect the associated negatives. Not all versions need a GoPro_ish_ camera. Generic ban on 'surveillance devices' shouldn't apply to all Google Glass implementations.
And the version that does come with a camera must do much more with it than just act as a PoV camera. It should be able to do much better local image processing without wasting battery and cooking wearer's temple. Such processed data would provide useful contextual information when combined with Google's knowledge graph. Currently it can do some processing on the glass, some on the phone, burn Google servers and identify people if at all they publish their location or if they're in your or collocated person's G+ circle. Until this improves, a non-camera version will have a better market. Given the same knowledge graph, it or even your phone can pretty much do all the approximated augmentation like contextual person identification without camera input!!! We were never exactly augmenting reality here, were we? Add Bluetooth Low Energy peripheral mode to Android/iPhones and you can locate each other easily if at all you choose to advertise.
Oh do, use a near-IR camera, to track eye movement if you must for input, but avoid outward facing camera in at least one of the versions of Google Glass.
Change 2: Non-prominent Display Please
Google Glass probably gets its name from the cuboid prism that helps reflect the micro-display projected content to visually focus few foot away from the wearer's eye. After all, the other two pieces of glass, found framed in typical spectacles, are optional by design.
This prism needs to vanish; well okay, at least thin down and move inward. Must fit slightly closer to the eye; potentially between the eye and a regular spectacle. Contact lens in future are welcome. But for now, the request is to avoid the thick projection in front of spectacle frames.
 |
| Display Prism Inset |
Though the roughly drafted image doesn't attempt to thin down the prism, that needs to happen as well.
How to achieve this is a solvable research problem. We may need different micro-array lens that can focus while still closer to the eye. We've attempted concentric lenticular arrays with contact lens displays (on rabbits) that are not even millimeters away from the eye. Here we're talking centimeters instead. The spectacle's glass itself could get the required laser etched diffraction grating and polishing to serve the same purpose as the prism. Or use a better micro-projector with lens. Then there are design and production issues with something that's almost at the same level instead of outside the specs. Still solvable and worth solving.
Summary
There must be multiple types of Google Glass implementations. Some without an outward camera and an inset-display or grating or projector + lens. It should not be affected by ban against surveillance devices. Google must ensure that it appears very distinct from the current Glass. Google must also brand and market it distinctly to avoid confusion. It'd obviously be more affordable and yet suitable for most. It'd give customers more choices ... one of the most important factors that lead to the success of Android.
