A few weeks ago, Google decided to quietly sunset Google
Glass. They never said it publicly and in fact they might be considering
another strategy for the device, but by all measures, Google Glass as we know
it has failed. There are many theories for the reasons of this failure ranging
from privacy concerns to the lack of social acceptance for walking around with
geeky glasses. My theory is that the failure may be related more to the $1,500
price tag as consumer gadgets are simply not supposed to be that expensive.
 |
| Sergey Brin wearing Google Glass |
That’s perhaps really the problem. Google Glass was certainly
too expensive as a gadget for consumers but it likely wouldn’t have been too
expensive as a business productivity tool. Most companies wouldn’t have a
problem with the devices price, particularly with the customary volume
discounts, if it demonstrated tangible benefits.
I can think of numerous business applications for Google
Glass – from instructions while operating or repairing complex machinery, to
patient records during surgery, to production data on the assembly line and supplier
data in the warehouse.
But none of that was ever a priority apparently. Instead, Google
put all their efforts into marketing Glass to consumers. The consumers may
represent a greater opportunity in terms of volume but the enterprise market may
represent a greater opportunity to optimize revenue. Just ask Microsoft.
There have been other technologies that I thought would have
benefited from this strategy. Microsoft Kinect for Xbox comes to mind. While
popular with gamers, the novelty of gaming via full body motion control is now
wearing off. Let’s face it, most gamers want to shoot at aliens while sitting
on their sofa and the Kinect is not the optimal weapon for that.
I would have hoped that we’d see Kinect being used in
business – the repair technicians with oily hands reviewing designs, foremen at
construction sites reviewing blue prints, surgeons with sterile hands reviewing
patient records, farmers with dirty hands, lab technicians working in gloves –
there are many use cases for gesture-based interaction.
When gestures are not practical, voice-based interaction
might be appropriate. This is another technology that might have a greater
application in the professional world than in the consumer space, at least given
the current state of voice recognition. While the consumers relish in finding
out the shortcomings of the still relatively new technologies such as Apple
Siri or Amazon Echo, the business use cases may be more feasible. The business
vocabulary is more precise and predictable, particularly in the given context.
Professionals usually have to learn their business vocabulary as part of their
job training and that makes it easier and less ambiguous.
Consumers usually resort to calling a company’s 800-number only
after they failed to accomplish something online. At that point, we are
exposing the already frustrated consumer to a voice recognition system that is
far less mature than the web site and expect it to deliver a great experience.
People usually don’t call in to do something that can be done with a smartphone
app – like to check their account balance. In the business world, on the other
hand, users are already trained to use a fairly precise language and their
voice commands are usually in the context of a specific data set or business
process.
“I need the Q3 revenue data for Europe broken down by
product group” is much easier for a machine to understand and act upon than: “I
want to buy a companion ticket for my spouse using my miles to match an already
issued ticket purchased by my employer”. This relatively common task requires
many additional data points - ticket number, flight numbers, account number,
name and DOB of the traveler, seating preferences, credit card number, etc. –
and that is very difficult for a voice-driven system to piece together.
 |
| Apple Watch. Yes, I want one! |
A few weeks ago, Apple launched its new Watch. By all
measures, it is already a success even though it won’t ship for another few days.
The demo by the Apple team was very impressive and the press reviews are glowing.
I have no doubt that the Apple Watch will become a success. But I wonder about
the practical use cases of the Watch for consumers. So far, most wearable
devices have focused on fitness but that market is very saturated already. The
serious athletes will be hard to separate from their specialized Garmin, Timex,
and Suunto watches. The hobby athletes are well served by the Fitbit, Jawbone,
and Nike Fuel fitness trackers or they simply keep using their smartphones.
I can’t help but to wonder about the business use cases for the
Apple Watch. There are many possibilities – approving process tasks,
participating in simple collaboration activities, delivering business
context-relevant information, etc. Smart watches are looking for a killer app and
sharing your heartbeat is probably not it. I suspect that we could find it sooner in
business rather than the consumer space.
 |
| Google Glass page on March 31, 2015 |
