Scoble: Google Glass is doomed

“Google Glass is doomed,” Robert Scoble blogs on Google+. “Why do I say that? Because the tech press tells me so.”

“Nearly everyone wants to try it. Google is brilliant. They got us to pay $1,500 (plus tax) to be its PR agent. It’s gotten to the point where even I don’t want to wear them around,” Scoble writes. “I’m hearing they won’t be able to get under $500 in 2014, so that means it’s doomed. In 2014. When they get under $300 and have another revision or two? That’s when the market really will show up. 2016, I say.”

“If apps do show up by some miracle how many can you really fit into the small format of Glass? Not many. This thing is gonna break if I tried to put the 300 apps on my MotoX or iPhone onto it,” Scoble writes. “Why? You simply won’t scroll through hundreds of apps. Your arm will get tired. And if you add too many it’ll decrease voice recognition quality.”

Robert Scoble, glasshole.
Robert Scoble, glasshole.
“When doing video the battery only lasts 45 minutes AND it gets very hot. I expect that will get fixed, right now video is being compressed in software,” Scoble writes. “I bet that when they release the public version it will be done in hardware.”

“But, what is real-world battery use like? Already Google has had to ratchet back a bunch of features it wanted to include, like automatic uploads of photos,” Scoble writes. “It now only does that when plugged in and on wifi.”

Much more in the full article here.


MacDailyNews Take: So, basically, Glass is “doomed” in it’s current iteration, but the idea of Glass, according to Scoble is not at all doomed, just a couple of years out: 2016, he says.

We shall see if it comes that quickly. In order to become acceptable to the mainstream, beyond Scoble’s hometown of Totaldorkville, face-mounted wearable computing will have to get a lot smaller, a lot less obtrusive, a lot more efficient, a lot more useful, and a lot more stylish. That’s a lot of lots, but, just off the top of our heads, we can think of one company who could check off that formidable checklist — and its name isn’t Google.

Related articles:
One year wearing Google Glass: ‘Look at that asshole’ – December 31, 2013
Why an Apple iWatch has better chances than Google Glass – November 6, 2013
Apple’s Siri lambastes Google Glass – August 26, 2013
Google Glass ban list grows; top 10 places banning Google Glass – August 7, 2013


        1. It may become popular when it is pretty much invisible embedded in stylish glasses/sun glasses. of course in that format the scariness of its intrusive spying ability is at its most concerning. Cant see this ending well, its just a matter of in which bad direction it falls.

    1. The big difference with BlueTooth headsets was that they were cheap enough to try them without breaking the bank. Plenty were sold a few years ago, but customers soon realised that it wasn’t the right solution for them and they were discarded.

      When you’re talking about $1,500 now, or maybe $250 in the future, most customers would need to be pretty sure that they will get a real benefit from using the product. Until somebody comes up with a solution that tackles the emotional and social aspects of the technology and combines that expertise with ultra-low power consumption and an effective user interface, I don’t see head worn displays becoming mainstream.

      Like MDN, I can only think of one company who are likely to get it right, but my hunch is that the big opportunity will be for wearable computing rather than head-worn computing.

    2. Bluetooth headsets are useful for gaming, most of the time in public, you are in environments that are too noisy for them to work well, or you look really geeky having one hang off your ear all the time, or looking like your talking to yourself.

      1. I’m not denying they’re useful, in practise they have not seen widespread adoption – because you look geeky, or like you’re talking to yourself. My point is that I would imagine this will be very similar. Glass, or similar wearable technology will no doubt be good for games, or in certain environments, but I just don’t see them taking off in the same way mobile phones have.

  1. It useless for one eyed person!!! It not easy to walk in public with that google glasses on. And glasses wearers can’t wear that either. Hearing impaired not able to speak well not all are wouldn’t be useful either.

  2. Funny listening to someone talk about Glass succeeding in the future. Doesn’t Google frequently lose interest in things as time goes by. May be the same with this, too.

  3. I am very skeptical of Glass being used in Banks and around personal information centers. Recently, standing in line in a bank, I noticed that if I had on “Glass” I could have recorded two sigs and full accounts. All it takes is a half a second for Glass to record FULL information of a bank account just viewing a check as it is laid down or handed over to a cashier, something that the best brain would have trouble doing.

    There are other instant “invasion of privacy” and “stealing of information” that is possible. Freightening to me.

  4. I can envision Google Glass devices being useful in very specific situations, such as in Healthcare or in moviemaking; In other words, controlled environments, in the sense that people around the wearer are aware what purpose the glasses are to be worn and used. I do not see this device ever becoming socially acceptable for casual or recreational use, unless it was marketed for a limited, positive use, and that message was accepted by the general public; for example, as a deterrent to crime, using the glasses to record actions, instead of using a cellphone camera. But even that suggestion is a stretch.

  5. Stand in a line of people in just about any major metropolitan area in the world and you’ll see the same thing: slouched shoulders and down-turned faces staring glumly at smartphone screens. Some people never look away, completely immersed in whatever is happening in the palm of their hands, while others get stuck in a loop of pulling phones from pockets or purses and popping on the screens for just a moment before putting them away again for just a minute or two.

    Smartphones are amazing things, but for those who have become addicted to messaging instant gratification, they are a bit unwieldy. This annoyance gets even worse as these devices grow larger and larger. One approach would be to relax a little and stop feeling so compelled to check for Facebook notifications every 30 seconds. Those fully immersed in the information age, however, will be more inclined to fix the physical inconveniences presented by the problem. A heads-up display seems like a natural fit, and thus we have Google Glass. It’s a headset with a projected display, a camera and a data connection that could revolutionize the mobile device industry. It could also cause a public uproar over privacy concerns. Is the potential worth the risk? Join us after the break to see.

  6. Glass is a total loss for google. They do not sell hardware for a profit . The only reason is to damage Apple and Microsoft. Glas hurts neither, because nobody really wants them, but the writers accepting Google’s payola. The next step is the usual one for Google. Sell it below cost. $35 might attract some buyers a. Nd. A few f them might buy glass instead of an App,e product, thus satisfying Google’s real goal. What Google can’t steal, they try to ruin with competing products below cost.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.