Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TonyzTone t1_jdg2oe5 wrote

Google Glass was kind of amazing. Hard not to look like a douche wearing them, but given how far app infrastructure has come, it was probably just ill-timed.

149

FormerKarmaKing t1_jdh5iz8 wrote

I managed a team of Google Glass developers - meaning not for Google, but external. Not even they could really find a use for it. And after the first couple of weeks, they wouldn’t even wear it around the office or at their desks.

There are use cases for a HMD but they are very few and far between. Microsoft just axed their division of developers working on their AR division because not even the military, their biggest contract, was finding much use for them.

56

DutchBlob t1_jdhkh5f wrote

Mark Zuckerberg: I’m gonna leroy jenkins my entire company into AR

39

C_bells t1_jdj5e55 wrote

I'm a product design & strategy lead (agency-side), and it's actually unique to get a client who is open to being told "you shouldn't make this."

Or even a client who is open to having us find out why we should make something, what it should do, how it should work etc before actually going to make it.

It's truly incredible how most major companies just decide to make something out of thin air pretty much. I'm working with a major airline right now who has never done any kind of strategy or discovery.

I do actually think Google tends to be pretty good at quickly and seamlessly scrapping things that don't have a high use rate. I've also been hired by them to do *just* discovery work, so I think they're way better than most.

But yeah. It's wild out there. It seems logical that making a new product would start with the question, "what do people want? What problems can we solve?" But most of the time, it does not.

Edit to add: I know Ford's famous quote of, "if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."

But before anyone says that sometimes tech needs inform people about what they want, it doesn't. I'd argue that Ford did exactly that -- made a faster horse. It's still what people wanted.

6

atheros t1_jdjunbs wrote

A trivial amount of follow-up fixes that.

"Why do you want a faster horse?"
"So that I can get to my destination faster."
"What if I sold a machine that was faster than a horse that could be maintained like a tool rather than an animal?"
"That sounds good so far.."

People are bad at expressing themselves but it's easy to help them.

4

C_bells t1_jdmxig2 wrote

Exactly! When I'm doing research, I design it all so that it's analytical and not literal.

So, if I'm doing a sketching session with people about a pet care app, I have them draw a fantasy physical space that would allow them to provide amazing care for their pets. Then break it down -- are there people there? Is it big or small? Outside or indoors? Etc etc.

You end up getting super interesting elements that could be turned into digital features. Like someone says that in their space, there's a group of friendly pet owners they can talk to. That leads me to realize we should create and test a social component in our app.

I still have other designers complain that sessions like this don't help them directly inform what to make.

But it's like, so you wanted random people to design an app for you? lmao

It's our job to find creative ways to address people's needs. That's literally what good design is.

It doesn't come from a random idea that seems cool, and it doesn't come from directly copying interfaces and features that already exist elsewhere (which is what most people are limited by in terms of ideation).

It's sad that so many people in tech don't think about core needs. It should be the basis of all our work.

2

sonofaresiii t1_jdhg725 wrote

iirc they were immediately met with tons of privacy concerns and were banned from a lot of places with the indication that if they actually became widespread, they'd be banned pretty much anywhere.

To my recollection, that's what actually killed it. I mean there were lots of factors, but that's the trajectory I remember, because I was really interested in them and thought they were cool, then I started seeing articles about all the different places you couldn't take them without massive privacy violations, which made them effectively useless.

Like, say someone bans them in bathrooms. Reasonable, but now imagine having to take off your glasses every time you go to the bathroom. The usefulness starts wearing down.

21

TonyzTone t1_jdhlgej wrote

Ah yeah, that’s a good point. I do remember that was what effectively killed them.

9

justpackingheat1 t1_jdhzz3e wrote

If I'm not mistaken, it was because the things randomly took pictures every 5 seconds or something ridiculous and sent that info to Google so they could "have a more accurate" Google street view or some dumb shit.

Like, yes, THAT'S the world we want to live in. Tech companies need to pull their heads out of their asses

6

Talktotalktotalk t1_jdhrj6d wrote

I wonder what Apple plans to do about this when they release some kind of glasses down to the line

1

hornyjacks t1_jdi84o4 wrote

They don't have to do anything about it. When Apple releases one, everything will think it's the coolest thing ever, and forget about privacy concerns.

4

sonofaresiii t1_jdhuwqt wrote

Yeah man I don't know. I remember a similar thing when they integrated the camera into their macbooks, and all of a sudden macbooks were entirely banned from secure places (like government facilities)

and apple didn't really seem to give a shit. But I think the glasses ban would be way more widespread, since they're always on someone's face.

Maybe they'll market it as more specialty items, rather than always-on items? Like, "Put them on while driving for AR navigation enhancements!" or something

1

good2goo t1_jdi6owp wrote

Whatever company made the rayban partnership probably had it right. It was a limited use case but at least it looked normal.

1

flamingllama33 t1_jdh1yg2 wrote

I think up until recently it’s been used in a lot of specialized jobs like shipping and construction, just didn’t hit for the general public.

14

Sybertron t1_jdhcxmz wrote

I was one of the first adopters, I remember taking them into the bar next door to the google studio and people were all interested in talking about them. But one girl was like "ya know though just kinda looks douchey once you have them on"

So I dunno what it was but even back then in the first early days that was the opinion.

6

TonyzTone t1_jdhlt9s wrote

Absolutely. My two interactions with Glass was (1) seeing a dude wearing it at a friend’s wedding. At first I was like “whoa, cool!” Then I realized he just looked kind of douchey for some reason. This could’ve been fixed with better hardware design.

(2) A worker had them and I got to try it on. Again, “whoa, cool!” until ultimately I realized how there wasn’t really anything it was adding. This could’ve been fixed with a more robust app infrastructure.

4