Google Glass If It Was Successful, What Could’ve Been?

: A Brief Socio-Technical Interface

Analysis

Akhmad Zacky Wisnuputra - 2206822793

Media and Society

Though hailed as a groundbreaking innovation at the time, Google Glass failed to live up
to its expectations due to various socio-technical factors. Google Glass, the wearable technology
by Google broke the internet in 2012. It piqued the interests of internet users through advertising
of skydiving, biking, and wall scaling all through the first-person perspective. Advertisements
often show user-friendly information appearing on screen during daily activities. These pieces of
information contain those you would normally access on your phone, such as the weather, news,
time, and other things often consumed routinely, but now at the corner of your sight. It seemed
like practicality for information consumption was nearing its cutting-edge point. But why has it
failed?
For one, technological limitations. At the time of its creation, the energy required for
Google Glass to operate while still being practical wasn’t at an ideal level. All the features
packed inside the small processing unit were also limited, and image recognition capabilities
weren’t the best, too. With these in mind, the price tag of USD 1.500 doesn’t make any sense
either. A lot saw Google Glass as an unnecessary luxury, as all the information you can get from
the device, you can get by simply accessing your phones, computers, or other more accessible
devices. It just removes the haste of pulling out your phone out of your pocket.
The concept of technological determinism suggests that technological developments are
the primary driver of social change. This theory implies that once a new technology is
introduced, societal changes will almost inevitably follow. If we ask the question of what
could’ve been if Google Glass reached its initial potential, we could see it from a lot of different
aspects. But in this essay, I will only discuss a few.
The use of wearable technologies means we don’t have to put as much effort into
consuming our daily requirement of information. This means that people could spend less time
on their devices, and put more time on doing other activities. Less screen time means there’s also
a lesser chance of us procrastinating and scrolling on and on through information that we don’t
really need. Through Google Glass, low-attention information is put to the side, giving us more
focus on what’s really in front of our eyes. This could lead to many benefits. Economically, we
could have more time to do work. Emotionally, this could help people be less distracted by their
phones on face-to-face social interactions. These are only a few, the real potential along with
further development of the technology is arguably limitless.
Those are the positives, we might argue. Google Glass was initially introduced to the
public in 2012, long before the privacy breach issue boomed in 2016 due to the Cambridge
Analytica Scandal. If Google Glass were to reach its potential and become the new normal for
smart devices, we’d be likely to see ethical issues in question. Privacy, data security, user rights,
all of these things are the cost of having a highly interactable device that will most likely
document your day-to-day life.
Nonetheless, the fall of Google Glass might be the best outcome for society after all.
Assuming that even without it, a lot of things in our digital and real life are seamlessly integrated
nowadays. This could both impact us in positive and negative ways. The recent release of Apple
Vision Pro might see the comeback of similar technology, but to as how it could shape society as
a whole, as for Google Glass never had the chance to do so, is for the future to see.

References

Weidner, J. B. (2023, July 20). Why Google Glass failed. Investopedia.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/052115/how-why-google-glass-failed.as
p

Athique, A. (2013). Digital media and society: An Introduction. Polity.