Skip to content

Keep It Simple, Silly

Does anyone remember Google Glass? The super high-tech, kind of dorky looking glasses Google released in 2015? If you don’t, I wouldn’t be surprised. Although Google is a multi-million-dollar enterprise, their release of Google Glass was a flop due to problematic design.

(And just for reference, if any of you guys are familiar with the show Ned’s Declassified School Survival Guide, Google’s product looked a bit like Cookie’s glasses)

Though the idea of combining glasses with a smart device sounds pretty genius, Google Glass’ design appeared pretty awkward and unattractive.

Here’s Google Glass. Could you see yourself wearing them?

For this reason, their sales were underwhelming and Google Glass ceased production. Google’s design focused on emphasizing the technological features of this product, but they were woefully unsuccessful. I’ll put this in terms I understand.

Say you know a really talented guitarist, and they play several riffs and cool guitar solos for you effortlessly. Wouldn’t sitting back and listening to their awesome skills be much more enjoyable than listening to them explaining every single chord progression and finger placement they’ve done in order to produce their sound?

In a way, Google is the over-explaining guitarist. They made a product with technological advancements, much like many other smart products out there. However, instead of using a simplified and straightforward design (like android watches, etc), they decided to beat us over the head with the visibility of their tech features. Look! A huge thumb drive is clinging to the side of my face! Look! A glowing chip is obstructing my vision! These glasses are certifiably, undeniably smart!

This is my belief: consumers love products that seem effortlessly functional. The simpler a product appears, the more accessible it seems and the more we’re impressed with its technological features.

What do you guys think?


  1. aburke20 wrote:

    I completely agree with you. I always thought that these glasses were odd. Why would you want to walk around with a noticeably visible camera on your glasses, looking like you are secretly recording people? The concept behind these glasses was interesting, but the aesthetics were absolutely terrible.

    Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
  2. karguet3 wrote:

    This is a very good point. I remember this coming out but never actually saw what it looked like. After googling the pictures that promotional photos they used of people look ridiculous. This looks like something that would be in Back to the Future 2, so I guess it is fitting it was released in 2015.

    Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:08 am | Permalink
  3. atowner wrote:

    Gosh, I’d completely forgotten about Google Glass. AR has come such a far way since then, so I’m really surprised Google hasn’t tried to resurrect projects in this vein. I definitely agree with your assessment here — there’s a reason Apple has a reputation for being something people buy just for the looks, that’s how stylish they’ve made their products.

    (Also, I’m gonna go binge all of Ned’s Declassified now, thank you for this gift)

    Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:58 am | Permalink
  4. jcruz12 wrote:

    Simplicity is all we need. I just wanna enjoy the products for one good reason and not many, unless I’m the kind of the person that loves listening to complex information.

    Understanding complex details is like texting and driving. We only want to only focus one thing at a time. It should be obvious, but driving to a desired destination is always the main focus, not texting. In fact, that’s exactly what make the Google Glasses a failure. How is one supposed to focus on the physical activities they are doing while looking at a computer screen in front of their eyes?

    Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:00 pm | Permalink