Google Glass: Probably the worst $1,500 I've spent in my life

Our man in the US Larry Walsh gives the thumbs down to Google's first foray into wearable tech

Google has lifted the wraps on its Google Glass device, making it available to everyone - at least those who can place orders before inventory is sapped. After using the wearable computing for three months, my best advice is to avoid Google Glass and wait. It's simply not ready for primetime.

Confession time: I was excited when I was approved by Google to purchase Google Glass. After a year of trying to obtain the $1,500 (£896.65) wearable device, I was finally admitted into the programme and would discover what all the hubbub was about.
Boy, was I disappointed.

Google Glass is now the featured item in my personal exhibit of obsolete or utterly useless electronic devices. It sits proudly between my first-generation Sony eReader and Acer netbook. And, I have to say, it's probably the worst $1,500 I've ever spent in my life.

Google is getting a lot of criticism of late about the limited functionality of Google Glass. And there's even a backlash over the device, as bars, stores and other public establishments worry about the privacy implications the devices create.

First, let's address the potential. Google Glass isn't the first wearable computing device. Motorola actually had one earlier - the HC1 - that ran Windows XP, but it looked even worse. It was basically a head band with a flexible arm with a video monitor on the end. The idea is the same, though: provide video and visual content to the user without obstructing normal vision.

From that perspective, Google Glass and other such devices have plenty of potential. Imagine a plumber or engineer looking at instructions through the device, keeping his hands free for working. Or think of the reverse; the camera broadcasting activity back to a control centre, where professionals can instruct the field workers.

The potential for first responders is enormous. Imagine a firefighter or police officer arriving on the scene of a crisis, capturing all the activity through is video camera, receiving instructions from his command centre and getting to the highest priority location via mapping applications.

I bought Google Glass for several reasons. First, and I'll admit it, to fulfill the "first kid on the block" desire; I wanted a pair because no one else had them. Second, I wanted to see how usable and practical they are. I wore them around New York for a couple of weeks, and wore them at several channel conferences to test the personal and professional applications.

My conclusion: Google Glass has tremendous potential. However, the reality - in its current incarnation - is limited.

Google Glass suffers from a lack of applications, limited battery life, non-intuitive user interface, insufficient configuration controls and, frankly, social deniability.

The limited battery life is a problem. At best, Google Glass has a two-hour battery life; the meter starts falling as soon as it's turned on and more intensive use accelerates the drain. Even conservative use - surfing websites and taking a few pictures - isn't enough to prolong the usability life.

The lack of applications is even more maddening. Officially, Google Glass has under two dozen approved applications, and they include the standards - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and so forth. The New York Times and CNN also have applications, but their feeds are limited to short videos and summations of text articles. Even with these apps, Google Glass users don't get the range of functionality they do with a PC or smartphone. Worse, not all videos are optimised for playing on Google Glass.

The practical applications, such as those I described above for first responders and field technicians, are just theory. Eventually, third-party software vendors or Google will write real applications for the video and communications features of Google Glass. For now, Google Glass is simply limited to taking photos. Oh, but be warned, improper photo and social sharing settings could get you in trouble; I had more than one Google Glass pic escape on to Facebook and Twitter without any user action taken.

When it comes to communications, Google Glass is woefully inadequate. The device uses Bluetooth to connect to a master Android or iOS device, where the real computing is done. Google Glass has a speaker and earbud for audio, and an embedded microphone. In theory, you can use Google Glass as a wireless headset, but it doesn't have the audio or microphone quality of real Bluetooth headsets.

The beauty of Google Glass is its virtually hands-free interface. You can blink to take a picture. You can activate the device with a head motion. And other functions are performed simply by swiping your fingers over the frame. The interface is woefully kludgy, even for the initiated. Navigation is difficult, often requiring going all the way back to the main menu to restart the process. The voice command works remarkably well, but still takes users down the same convoluted navigation trees.

Google seems to think everything should be online. Google Glass is proof-positive that heavy apps residing on a client aren't necessarily archaic. The Google Glass control panel is online, and has limited features for customising and configuring the device function. Google seems to think it knows what and how the device should be used. What would make the interface better is if Google produced something akin to the iTunes app Apple made for iPods and iPhones.

The social acceptability of Google Glass is practically non-existent. While walking around channel conferences wearing Google Glass, plenty of people asked about the device and a few even asked to try it. Almost none wanted one of their own. The device isn't stylish or unobtrusive enough. If it were smaller and looked more like regular glasses, they would be more acceptable. Instead, they make the user look like a half-baked Borg. What Google has essentially created is digital versions of what we used to call in the military "birth control glasses."

It's hard to deny that Google is on the cutting-edge when it comes to wearable technology. Google Glass has a lot of potential, but little of it is realised in this or foreseeable generations. Through its limited distribution, Google has created an artificial demand for these devices. By buying Google Glass, you are essentially underwriting Google's development of better, more mature versions.

Best advice: Wait. Chances are Samsung will come out with something similar, and perhaps better, at a substantially lower price. I wish I had waited.

Larry Walsh is president of Channelnomics.

As part of our special editorial partnership, CRN is pubishing this article from Channelnomics.