Will Google Glass 2.0 be the next iPod?

“Let me go on record here and state that I was not a fan of Google Glass at all. I cannot imagine being at a party or a restaurant or other social setting and seeing somebody wearing Glass,” Jim Lynch blogs. “If I had been in that situation I would have immediately put my guard up for fear of being recorded in a video by the Glass wearer. I don’t think I’m alone in that since most of us say and do things that we don’t want recorded and shared without our knowledge and consent.”

“Yes, the Glass device was a combination of ugly and silly that made anybody wearing them look foolish, to say the least. I wear distance glasses, and you couldn’t have paid me enough to walk around with Glass on my head. Ugh,” Lynch writes. “But I don’t think Glass is gone for good at all, I think Google realized that a serious makeover was needed and that is what they are doing right now.”

a glasshole
A Glasshole
“Google has handed Glass off to Tony Fadell, the guy who was responsible for Apple’s iPod and even had a part in the development of the iPhone. He heads up the Nest division at Google, and now he’s in charge of Glass,” Lynch writes. “There’s no guarantee, of course, that Fadell can turn Glass into another iPod. Lightning rarely strikes twice in that way. But I really don’t think he has to hit iPod-like sales numbers with Glass for it to be considered successful. He simply needs to redefine the purpose and physical design of Glass in a way that makes it a viable product, and makes it something that people actually want to buy rather than just another technological curiosity unleashed on the world by Google.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: So, the answer to the headline is: No.

Related article:
Google Glass is no more, if it ever was – January 15, 2015


  1. I think Sarah Palin last said it best…You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. (cue the Sarah Palin flamer asshats…)

    The problem with Google Glass wasn’t cosmetic. Which for now, seems to be the biggest thing they’ll change about it. The problem with GG was two-fold:

    1. GOOGLE!

    2. It’s not a good concept. Too many social problems/taboos to hurdle, and the “Jetsons” concept is just crap. Never gonna be liked by the public. Too many privacy concerns.

    Nuff said.

  2. 2.0 or 3.0 or…… It doesn’t matter. It isn’t because it was butt ugly first time around. Nor was it functionality or UI. No update is going to change the problem. It is just a very creepy idea in general. These bozos don’t get it because they are creepy too!

  3. “He simply needs to redefine the purpose and physical design of Glass in a way that makes it a viable product, and makes it something that people actually want to buy”

    That part of the article is quite true and it applies to most new products. I might quibble about including the word “simply”, as I don’t think it’s an easy task to transform Google Glass into something that people will actually want to buy, but it’s pretty obvious that unless he comes up with a way to make it a compelling product with an entirely obvious purpose, it’s never going to take off.

    I think that highlights a significant difference between Google and Apple. Google invested a huge amount of money developing a technology which appears to have no obvious market or purpose. Apple would never have allowed a product like that to leave the laboratory unless there was a clearly defined market for it, together with a high probability that it would be a profitable business.

    1. I can imagine Glass Technology installed in cars.
      Where hands free is a must.
      However it also maybe seen (lol) as a distraction to driving.
      Implementation has to be just right – so Google can not possibly manage that. Let’s wait until Apple for some reason sees Glass like technology merged with Siri.

  4. Hey, look at me. I’m a Glasshole 2.0: The New Breed.

    I believe Google Glass could be useful in some industries, but I really don’t see consumers taking to it in the near future. I think it would have caught on by now if it was ever going to be popular. Even using 3D TV glasses are annoying to consumers, so I can imagine very few consumers would put up with wearing Google Glass.

  5. Yeah, put it in a motorcycle helmet – where it cant be seen – but can provide data, turn directions and traffic advice whilst on the move.

    The trouble is, that its a niche product for a niche market however you redefine it.

  6. Yes, Fadell was instrumental in the iPod, but he always had others to guide him, too. I think he’ll become like Rubinstein and make himself some dough, and have a product that isn’t bad, but isn’t great or something that people will want.
    Hiring people who worked at Apple isn’t making or besting an Apple product.

Reader Feedback

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