Google Glass

23
Running head: GOOGLE GLASS 1 Google Glass Marketing Project Report MRKT CB158 (Fall 2015) Mohawk College (Hartung, 2015)

Transcript of Google Glass

Page 1: Google Glass

Running head: GOOGLE GLASS 1

Google Glass

Marketing Project Report

MRKT CB158 (Fall 2015)

Mohawk College

(Hartung, 2015)

Page 2: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 2

Table of Contents Google ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

About ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Google’s Mission Statement ............................................................................................................. 3 Environmental Scan .................................................................................................................................... 4

Environmental Forces ................................................................................................................... 4-5 Summary: Positive and Negative Trends .......................................................................................... 5

SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Profiling Target Buyers ........................................................................................................................... 7-8

Geographic Segmentation ................................................................................................................. 7

Demographic Segmentation .............................................................................................................. 7 Psychographic Segmentation ............................................................................................................ 7

Behavioural Segmentation ................................................................................................................ 8 Who are the target buyers? ............................................................................................................... 8

Marketing Mix ....................................................................................................................................... 9-13 Product ........................................................................................................................................ 9-10

Product Features .................................................................................................................. 9 Analysis: Core, Actual and Augmented .............................................................................. 9

Analysis: Consumer Buying Behaviour ............................................................................ 10 Analysis: Product Life Cycle ............................................................................................. 10

Pricing Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 11 Place and Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 11

Promotional Mix ............................................................................................................................. 12 Analysis: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs .................................................................................................. 13

Analysis: Consumer Behaviours ......................................................................................................... 13-14 Social Factors .................................................................................................................................. 13

Personal Factors .............................................................................................................................. 14

Google Glass Point of Difference .............................................................................................................. 15 Unique Selling Proposition and Competitive Advantages ............................................................ 15

Google Glass Key Competitors ........................................................................................................... 15-17 Meta Pro Comparisons .................................................................................................................... 16

Vuzix Smart Glasses M100 Comparisons ...................................................................................... 17 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

References ................................................................................................................................................... 19

Page 3: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 3

Google ABOUT:

Google was founded by “Larry Page and Sergey Brin […] in

1998” (Google Inc., 2015b). Google currently has “70 offices in more

than 40 countries [worldwide]” (Google Inc., 2015b). Google also “serves

millions of people around the world” (Google Inc., 2015b). The founders began their development of this

search engine in 1996, where they experimented with different search techniques and tested the importance

of various webpages (Google Inc., 2015b). The process of testing the webpages allowed the founders to

determine which webpages were more relevant than others, and this enabled them to create efficient search

engines (Google Inc., 2015b). Google offers numerous applications for search engines, mobile

applications, geographical searches, business and social purposes (Google Inc., 2015d). Some of the

applications include: Google Chrome, YouTube, Google Maps, Google Scholar, Gmail, Google Docs,

Google Drive and Google+ (Google Inc., 2015d). As a result, Google has created one of the fastest and

largest search engines that currently exist in year the 2015.

From the beginning of their innovation, the founders of Google created a ten item list to ensure that

all their products and services align with the goals of the company (Google Inc., 2015b). The goals are as

follows: the company aims to be customer orientated, perfect their products and services, produce the fastest

search engines, equally value their customer input, be able to access their products and services everywhere,

create the biggest database, provide their services worldwide, create a comfortable work environment, and

create new goals every step of the way (Google Inc., 2015b). Thus, Google attempts to meet the standards

of their ten item lists for all of their past and future applications.

GOOGLE’S MISSION STATEMENT (2015):

Google’s mission statement is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally

accessible and useful” (Google Inc., 2015a; Google Inc., 2015b). As discussed in the aforementioned

section, Google aims to accomplish their goals, as well as their mission statement. The Google Glass is a

product that aligns with the mission statement and the goals of the company. The Google Glass product is

a device that is interactive and portable (Google Developer, 2015). It is a wearable device that uses

“imagery, colloquial voice interactions, and natural gestures [to search for services and information using

Google’s current search engine services]” (Google Developer, 2015). The Google Glass device is

compatible with Android and Windows (Google Inc., 2015b). As a result, this device makes the

information readily available and hands free. Thus, the Google Glass product is aligned with Google’s

mission statement.

(Lou, 2015)

Page 4: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 4

Environmental Scan: Macro Environment TECHNOLOGICAL

The advancement of technology has opened a huge market for portable smart devices (Danova,

2013; Mick, 2015). The Google Glass was the first wearable smart device that functions the same as, and

are compatible with smart phone technology (Duffy, 2013; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015). The Google

Glass can be used for communication, internet searches, as a GPS and Camera (Robbins, 2012). This

design is essential for attracting potential buyers since society highly relies on their smart technology for

daily activities (Duffy, 2013). However, the Google Glass was not compatible with IOS systems and this

deterred the large population of Apple users away from this product (Bilton, 2015; Mick 2015). The

Google Glass wear had a lot of potential in the smart device market, however, they faced many down falls

in the development and release of the product (Bilton, 2015; Curtis, 2015; Danova, 2013; Elizetxe, 2014).

ECONOMIC

There were two major downfalls to the economic aspects of the Google Glass product. The first

negative impact was the cost of the product compared to the original advertised price. The original estimated

price of the Google Glass was around $600 US Dollars however, during the release of the product, the cost

rose to $1,500 US Dollars (Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015; Stein, 2013a). Thus, the release price of the product

was more than double the original advertised price. In addition, there was a large variance in the retail price

and the production cost of the Google Glass; the manufacturing cost of the product was only “$152.47

[Dollars]” (Strange, 2014). Consumers are unwilling to pay $1,500 for the beta model of the Google Glass,

and as a result, there was a decrease in potential buyers due to the price (Mick 2015; Curtis, 2015). The

second negative impact was the change in target market of the Google Glass. The original target market for

the Google Glass product was the general population of consumers, however, Google decided to limit their

target market to their 8,000 early adapters: the “Glass Explorers” (Bilton, 2015). This action resulted in a

decrease in availability for consumers to purchase the Google Glass (Mick, 2015). As a result, the number

of potential buyers would also decrease due to the lack of convenience to purchase the product. Therefore,

the price and the lack of availability of the Google Glass caused the original project to be discarded.

POLITICAL

The Google Glass raised many safety and privacy concerns with the use of the product and it required

governmental intervention (Arthur, 2013; Bilton, 2015; Cipriano, 2014; Markham, 2012; Metz, 2015;

Robbins 2012). There were concerns that this product may be a distraction on the road and will cause danger

to the user and individuals around the user (Markham, 2012; Cipriano, 2014). For instance, this product

may distort reality and cause car accidents and self-injuries (Markham, 2012). There were also concerns

that this product may violate individuals’ privacies (Markham, 2012). For instance, users can take pictures

Page 5: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 5

or videos without the individuals’ permission (Markham, 2012). Another example would be compromising

the users’ privacies, since it tracks their locations while using the product (Markham, 2012). As a result of

these concerns, there has to be action placed on regulating where and how the Google Glass would be used.

CULTURAL

The Google Glass was a highly advertised product where it was endorsed by celebrities, the fashion

industry and television shows (Bilton, 2015; Poltrack, 2014). Due to the highly publicized product, some

consumers were interested in the development of the Google Glass (Mick, 2014). However, most consumers

were not quite accepting of this type of technology yet (Danova, 2013; Mick, 2014). Consumers felt

uncomfortable with the security and privacy issues that would arise from this product (Arthur, 2013; Bilton,

2015; Cipriano, 2014; Markham, 2012; Metz, 2015; Robbins 2012). It was expected to be one of the best

of its kind, but when the product came out, it was reviewed by their Glass Explorers as “the worst product

of all time” (Bilton, 2015; Danova, 2013). The device was too simplistic and the applications were not up

to competitors’ standards (Bilton, 2015). As a result, there were several negative connotations surrounding

the Google Glass project, which caused Google to discard and remodel this idea (Bilton, 2015; Mick, 2015).

SUMMARY

To summarize, there are two main positive and negative factors impacting the success of the Google

Glass product. The two positive factors that supported the success of the Google Glass product includes:

Technological and Cultural environments. This can be demonstrated since the Google Glass product was

the first of its kind, where it incorporates wearable technology with a high degree smart technology (Duffy,

2013; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015). As previously mentioned, it was highly advertised and endorsed by

celebrities and other influential sources (Bilton, 2015). As a result, the product caught consumers’ attention.

The two negative factors that impacted the success of the Google Glass product includes: Economic and

Political environments. One of the issues regarding the economical approaches of the Google Glass product

was that consumers were unwilling to pay $1,500 for it and it was not accessible (Swider, 2015; Mick,

2015). Consumers were also concerned with the privacy and safety issues of the product, where regulations

should be implemented for the users (Arthur, 2013; Bilton, 2015; Cipriano, 2014; Markham, 2012; Metz,

2015; Robbins 2012). As a result, due to the concerns that consumers had regarding the product, it forced

Google to remodel their plan for Google Glass. Therefore, technological, cultural, economic and political

environments are the main factors impacting the success of the Google Glass Product.

SWOT ANALYSIS

Page 6: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 6

STRENGTHS

• Operation: Good Supply Chain Management,

where it is very cheap to manufacture

($152.47) (Booton, 2015; Strange, 2014)

• This product is very innovative and unique. It

is the first wearable device that works the

same as and are compatible with smart

technology (Duffy, 2013; Danova, 2013;

Mick, 2015)

• Google is a highly recognized brand, where

individuals would highly trust Google when

they release a product, and it is a very

marketable product (Google Inc., 2015b)

• The Google Glass is lighter than average

sunglasses since it “only weighs 1.28 ounces”

(Pogue, 2012). It is also working with Ray

Bands, a top eye wear company, to develop a

stylish and marketable design (Nunez, 2014)

• It has a High Processor, where it can be

compared to the “Galaxy Nexus processor”

(Bishop, 2013)

STRENGTHS

• Google employees have high qualifications,

good training, good customer service,

intellectual capital (Google Inc, 2015c; Google

Capital, 2015; Miller & Bilton, 2011; Shontell,

2012)

WEAKNESSES

• The product has limited features, connectivity

problems and are not compatible with IOS

systems, which is a large market (Bilton, 2015;

Mick 2015)

• Competition offers similar products but at a lower

cost (Swider, 2013)

• The Google Glass has privacy and safety

concerns (Arthur, 2013; Bilton, 2015; Cipriano,

2014; Markham, 2012; Metz, 2015; Robbins

2012)

• Their Glass Explorers reviewed it as “the worst

product of all time” (Bilton, 2015; Danova, 2013)

• The product is not easily accessible, and cannot be

purchased or tried in retail stores (Mick, 2015)

• Consumers are not willing to pay for the Google

Glass at $1,500 (Swider, 2015)

OPPORTUNITIES

• Google can benefit the aviation community

by creating new applications for the Google

Glass that can help navigate pilots (Cipriano,

2014).

• It can change the retail experience for

consumers since they can use it to compare

costs on the spot (El-Arifi, 2014)

• Google Glass also shows opportunity to be a

device used in the medical community to

THREATS

• Need for Government Intervention for security

and safety issues, and it will take time for

consumers to feel comfortable to use the device

(Markham, 2012; Cipriano, 2014)

• Companies such as: MetaPro and Lobster

Technologies are in direct competition with

Google Glass. These companies developed a

cheaper product with similar functions (Times

of India, 2014; Woo, n.d.)

Page 7: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 7

educate and train healthcare employees

(Collins, 2014; Kern, 2014).

Profiling Target Buyers GEOGRAPHIC SEGMENTATION

The release of the Beta Google Glass product was only targeted towards their “Glass Explorers”

(Bilton, 2015). The Google Glass product was mainly distributed online and was only released in four retail

stores in London and the United States (Bilton, 2015; Edwards, 2015; Mick 2015). However, Google is a

worldly known corporation and it “serves millions of people around the world in more than 40 countries”

(Google Inc., 2015b). Prior to the release of the product, it was a highly advertised product in fashion

magazines and television shows (Bilton, 2015). As a result, this product became well-known worldwide

prior to the product release, but the few thousand purchases were mainly sold in the United States (Edwards,

2015).

DEMOGRAPHIC SEGMENTATION

The target market for the Google Glass product was for individuals with higher socioeconomic status,

education and professional occupations (Curtis, 2015; Duffy, 2013; Wohlsen, 2015). The cost of the Beta

product was 1,500 dollars, which would require the potential buyers to have a large disposable income

(Mick, 2015; Curtis, 2015). Google attempted to design the Google Glass for “certain professional niches

[such as:] medical training, scientific exploration, [broadcast journalism] and photography” (Danova, 2013;

Elizetxe, 2014). After the release of the Beta Google Glass product, Google remodelled their product as

“Glass at Work[,][where it tackles the business world” and “Open Glass Product [for] visually impaired

users” (Curtis, 2015; Duffy, 2013; Metz, 2015). Thus, the target market for the Google Glass was for

individuals situated in higher socioeconomic status and white-collared occupations (Curtis, 2015; Duffy,

2013; Wohlsen, 2015).

PSYCHOGRAPHIC SEGMENTATION

The beta model of the Google Glass was only sold to their technologically savvy innovators: the

“Glass Explorers” (Bilton, 2015). However, Google attempted to remodel their product for professional

fields, such as: medical, journalism, and business occupations (Danova, 2013; Elizetxe, 2014; Wohlsen,

2015). The product would enable individuals in these professions to be more precise and efficient. For

instance, in the business or journalism field, it would change the note taking process from word

transcriptions to “video-transcript[ions] [through the Google Glass device]” (Markham, 2012). Business

fields could also be changed by the device, where individuals would be able to do video conferencing

through the Google Glass (Elizetxe, 2014). The Google Glass has potential to change how regular higher

Page 8: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 8

class individuals, that are not as technologically savvy, to search for directions, take photographs and

videos instantly, and other functions that smartphones possess with just a click of their wearable device

(Duffy, 2013; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015; Robbins, 2012). The device can even be used for leisure

purposes, such as: recording videos. As a result, the device can transform the personal and professional

lives of individuals that are situated in higher socioeconomic statuses with disposable income.

BEHAVIOURAL SEGMENTATION

Google attempted to target high socioeconomic class innovators that have more technological

knowledge than the average individual; however, there were many downfalls in targeting such a niche

(Curtis, 2015; Danova, 2013; Duffy, 2013; Elizetxe, 2014). Google wanted their users to view the Google

Glass as the new potential item that could transform their daily lives; unfortunately, this targeted niche had

many negative responses to this product (Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015; Markham, 2012; Wohlsen, 2015).

This innovative idea did have potential in transforming professional spectrums, such as the medical and

business worlds, but the execution of the Google Glass was too simplistic and low quality (Danova, 2013;

Mick, 2015; Markham, 2012; Wohlsen, 2015). As previously mentioned, their Glass Explorers rated the

Google Glass as “the worst product of all time” (Bilton, 2015; Danova, 2013). In addition, individuals that

were not a part of this niche also viewed this product to be dangerous and surrounded by many privacy

concerns (Arthur, 2013; Bilton, 2015; Cipriano, 2014; Markham, 2012; Metz, 2015; Robbins 2012). As a

result, this developed a very negative image of the Google Glass, due to the fact that even Google’s biggest

supporters disliked the product. As previously mentioned, Google is currently remodelling the Google Glass

to specifically target the business industry, a project called “Glass at Work” (Curtis, 2015; Duffy, 2013;

Metz, 2015). It is clear that Google was not very successful with their selling process and that it also failed

to reach its original targeted costumers, that being said, maybe in the near future Google will be more

successful with their new segmentation.

WHO ARE THE TARGET BUYERS?

Business Community (Levit, 2013) Medical Community (Gadget Help, 2014)

Page 9: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 9

Marketing Mix PRODUCT

Product Features

The development of the Google Glass was very innovative,

where a wearable device possesses the same functions as smart

technology (Duffy, 2013; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015). The Google

Glass allows the individual to be in a virtual bubble, where they can

surf the internet, take pictures and videos, use it as a GPS, and

communicate with others (Robbins, 2012; Google Inc., 2015e). The

device was also designed to be very adjustable and durable to fit any face shape (Google Inc., 2015e). The

device also comes with two different nose pad sizes that the individual can use to adjust to their comfort

(Google Inc., 2015e). The Google Glass can even be customized according to the individual’s eyewear

prescriptions (Eadicicco, 2013). However, the design of the Google Glass was criticized to be too

simplistic and bulky (Curtis, 2015; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015; Wohlsen, 2015). Google did receive help

from the fashion industry on the design and advertising aspects of the device, but consumers were not

satisfied when the product was released (Mick, 2015; Poltrack, 2014). Google does provide support

services pertaining to the Google Glass on their website, where users can receive help on how to operate

and care for their devices (Google Inc., 2015e). Individuals can also purchase warranties for their devices,

in case of flaws in the device or damages (Google Inc., 2015e). As a result, the innovative wearable

device was a great idea but the execution was not up to consumers’ standards.

Analysis: Core, Actual and Augmented

In this section, there will be an analysis on the three levels of product conducted on Google Glass:

core, actual and augmented. The core level of the Google Glass is to enable consumers to access their

social media and internet browsers, as well as, to have the ability to communicate with others, and capture

pictures and videos through their wearable device (Duffy, 2013; Danova, 2013; Google Inc., 2015e;

Mick, 2015). In the actual level of the product, the Google Glass is customizable. For instance, consumers

are given a variety of colours to choose from, where they can personalize their purchase (Google Inc.,

2015e). The Google Glass was also advertised to be produced with great quality materials, as well as,

being durable and fashionable (Bilton, 2015; Danova, 2013; Poltrack, 2014). However, when the product

was released, there was leaked information that the Google Glass only cost the company $152.48 dollars

to produce, while the sales price was marked up to $1500 dollars for the beta model (Booton, 2015;

Strange, 2014). In the augmented level of the product analysis, Google provides plenty of ways for

consumers to receive help for their Google Glass. For example, Google provides support services online

designated for their Google Glass product, and they also offer warranties for it (Google Inc., 2015e).

(Zambelich, 2015)

Page 10: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 10

Thus, Google does provide a core customer value, various features and after-purchase services for the

Google Glass.

Analysis: Consumer Buying Behaviour

The Google Glass is a specialty product where it required the consumer to specifically search for

the product online (Bilton, 2015; Edwards, 2015; Mick 2015). This device is situated in a higher price

market and it was exclusively sold to Google’s targeted consumers (Bilton, 2015). Google is well known

around the world and the brand enables consumers to view the product to be more credible and to develop

brand loyalty (Google Inc., 2015b). Although their brand is well known, Google only distributed their

product in a total of four stores in the United States and England for a limited amount of time, and this

restricted how consumers can attain the Google Glass product (Bilton, 2015; Edwards, 2015; Mick 2015).

As a result, only consumers that really desired this product would have made the effort to purchase it and

this negatively impacted their sales.

Product Life Cycle

Note: This Product Life Cycle analysis graph is produced through estimated sale values since Google refused to

release their sales data on their Google Glass Product.

Discussion:

In the Production Development Stage, Google sparked the attention to a variety of consumers

since they would not release any details on their production process. Google named this project as

“Project X” (Bilton, 2015). In the Introduction Stage, Google’s marketing department started advertising

the product and gathered celebrity and fashion industry endorsements before the Google Glass was close

Prod

uctio

nDe

velopm

ent

Introd

uctio

nStage

Grow

th

Maturity

Stage

Decline

Estim

ated

Trend

StagesofProductLifeCycle

GoogleGlassEstimatedSales(2012-2015)

Page 11: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 11

to being released (Bilton, 2015). In the Growth Stage, the unfinished beta model was sold to Google’s

Glass Explorers, and as a result, it did not fully develop in the Maturity Stage since the product was never

fully developed (Bilton, 2015). Thus, the Google Glass currently resides in the Decline Stage, where

individuals that sought this type of technology turned to their competitors, and the original Google Glass

product was abandoned (Curtis, 2015). Google is currently remodelling this product as “Glass at Work

[and only tackle the professional occupations]” (Curtis, 2015; Duffy, 2013; Metz, 2015).

PRICING

The Google Glass device was sold for $1,500 USD, while the manufacturing cost is only $152.47

USD (Strange, 2014). This results in Google having a large profit margin and the device is situated in a

higher price market. Thus, Google’s pricing strategy is to target higher socioeconomic class consumers

and have lower class consumers view the Google Glass as a luxury item (Curtis, 2015; Duffy, 2013;

Wohlsen, 2015). Google also attempted to target individuals with higher education and white collared

professions, which in turn, these individuals would most likely be situated in higher socioeconomic status

(Curtis, 2015; Duffy, 2013; Wohlsen, 2015). The consumers that purchase the Google Glass would also

have a large disposable income to try the innovative device in its Beta phase (Curtis, 2015; Mick, 2015).

In addition to this, Google only sold their devices to their 8,000 higher class innovators, of whom they

called their “Glass Explorers” (Bilton, 2015). As demonstrated above, Google focusses on exclusivity as

their pricing strategy.

PLACE AND DISTRIBUTIONS

Google emphasizes that their product is a specialty item, where individuals that want their Google

Glass product must actively seek it (Bilton, 2015; Edwards, 2015; Mick 2015). The Google Glass device

was mainly distributed online but Google did sell it in a total of four stores worldwide for a limited amount

of time; three stores in the United States and one store in England (Bilton, 2015; Edwards, 2015; Mick

2015). Google’s distribution strategy is very exclusive, where they limit how the consumer can purchase

their product. Google did develop a partnership with a company called Luxottica, where they manufacture

and distribute eyewear products (Poltrack, 2014; Nunez, 2014). This company deals with well-known

brands such as: “Ray-Ban, Ray-Ban, Oakley, Vogue-Eyewear, Persol, Oliver Peoples, Alain Mikli and

Arnette” (Poltrack, 2014). Google did receive help from Luxottica with the manufacturing and design of

the Google Glass, but they did not use the partnership for distribution purposes (Poltrack, 2014).

Unfortunately, Google did not have extensive partnerships with other companies to help their distribution

chain and this contributed to the failure of the original Google Glass project (Poltrack, 2014). The original

Google Glass project has been concluded, and the device is no longer available to be bought from Google’s

website but it is still available to be purchased from third party sellers, such as: eBay and Amazon.

Page 12: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 12

PROMOTIONAL MIX

Google used two promotional tools for their Google Glass product: Public Relations and Advertising.

Google used various methods of public relations, such as websites and social media, to help promote a good

image of their company and device (Google Developers, 2015; Google Inc., 2015a; Google Inc., 2015b;

Google Inc., 2015e). For instance, Google attempted to regulate the safety concerns that individuals have

from the Google Glass through a FAQ (Frequently Answered Questions) (Google Inc., 2015e). Google also

regulated and updated their supporters for the Google Glass through their Facebook Page (Facebook, 2015).

Thus, Google used their public relation tools to address and regulate their overall image of the products and

company. Google also used advertising to promote the benefits and demonstrate the product’s unique

innovative qualities (Google, 2013). For instance, the Google Glass had its own commercial to demonstrate

the functions of the device and how it can be used (Google, 2013). The Google Glass also used many

creative appeal techniques, where they were featured in popular television shows, fashion magazines, and

had immense amounts of celebrity endorsements (Bilton, 2015). Some examples of this include: being

featured on “‘Saturday Night Live,’ ‘The Colbert Report’ [and] ‘The Simpsons’” (Bilton, 2015). The

Google Glass even had their “own 12-page spread in Vogue magazine [,][which is a very popular and well-

known publication]” (Bilton, 2015). Google also got “Presidents [around the world][,] Prince Charles [and]

Oprah [to wear their device]” (Bilton, 2015). The widespread of pull strategies led Google to be very

successful in publicizing the Google Glass, despite how poorly they did with technological developments

and the actual execution of the product.

As demonstrated above, the strategies that Google used for their Google Glass product were mainly

pull strategies, where they focussed on using the advertising tool to promote their product. The Google

Glass was not in the market long enough to successful use push strategies to sell the product. There were

two main problematic factors that arose with this: firstly, the technological development of the Google

Glass was not finished and secondly, the marketing aspects of the Google Glass did not align with the

production of the product (Bilton, 2015). Due to this, Google was trying to sell the product at its beta phase

where the device included a large amount of bugs and low quality material for its high market price (Bilton,

2015; Mick, 2015). As a result, the hype of the product did not correspond with the expectations that

supporters had for the product (Bilton, 2015). Thus, Google Glass had a great amount of potential and was

very successful in the pull marketing aspects of the device; however, their greatest downfall was the

execution of the device.

Analysis: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Page 13: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 13

According to the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Google struggled to satisfy the second stage of the

pyramid: “Safety Needs” (Armstrong et. al., 2015b, p. 118-119). During the release of the Google Glass,

it raised many privacy and safety concerns with the product (Arthur, 2013; Bilton, 2015; Cipriano, 2014;

Markham, 2012; Metz, 2015; Robbins 2012). As previously mentioned, consumers are concerned that this

product will be a distraction on the road and cause injuries through a distorted reality (Cipriano, 2014;

Markham, 2012). Consumers also want the devices regulated since it can potentially violate their right to

privacy (Markham, 2012). As a result, Google attempts to overcome these concerns by visually

demonstrating how the device would operate through day-to-day use (Google, 2013). This demonstration

shows that the device would be able to improve your daily lives, rather than endangering it (Google,

2013). In addition, Google also attempts to avoid liability through stating on their website that users are

“responsible for complying with all applicable laws” (Google, 2015e). They also try to avoid

responsibility for privacy concerns by stating that their device is like a cellphone where other individuals

should be aware of their surroundings and it is like being around a cellphone device (Google, 2015e). As

a result, the safety concerns of the consumers are not resolved, but Google can avoid liability for these

concerns.

Analysis: Consumer Behaviours Consumers are influenced by many factors that affect their purchasing decisions, such as: Cultural,

Social, Personal and Psychological (Armstrong et. al., 2015b, p. 107). These factors consider the

consumers’ cultural and social values, spending ability, lifestyles, current trends, age and gender

(Armstrong et. al., 2015b, p. 107-115). All these factors affect how consumers view products and the

likelihood that they will purchase certain items (Armstrong et.al., 2015b, p. 107-115). This information is

important for companies, like Google, to determine how they are going to sell the product, who they will

target, and how likely their products will be bought (Armstrong et. al., 2015b, p. 107-115). To

demonstrate this, an analysis will be conducted below on the Google Glass and consumer behaviour,

where the most applicable consumer influences on purchasing the Google Glass would be: Social and

Personal.

Social Influences include the following considerations: which social group a person belongs to,

status and family (Armstrong et. al., 2015b, p. 110). The consumers that have purchased the Google Glass

are all higher social class “opinion leaders [,] [where they are all innovators of the wearable smart

technology]” (Armstrong et. al., 2015b, p. 111). The Google Glass device is the first of its kind, which

means that those consumers are the first users of wearable smart technology (Bilton, 2015; Curtis, 2015;

Mick, 2015). These consumers would also most likely be a part of the Google Glass social media, where

Page 14: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 14

they followed the development of the product (Armstrong et.al., 2015b, p. 111-112). There is a Google

Glass Facebook page currently with “201,787 likes”, where consumers on the Facebook page share their

experiences and pictures of their adventures from the Google Glass (Facebook, 2015). Consumers that

were interested in this device may also have a specific lifestyle and belong to groups with the same

interests, and would recommend it to other individuals in the groups. In addition, if the consumer liked

the product, they would most likely recommend it to their family and friends or vice versa (Armstrong

et.al., 2015b, p. 113-114). Thus, their recommendations would be more trustworthy to the consumer, and

this may help encourage purchases of the Google Glass (Armstrong et.al., 2015b, p. 113-114). Therefore,

social influences would contribute to consumers’ purchasing decisions.

Personal influences include the following considerations: “age and life cycle stage, occupation,

economic situation, lifestyle [,] personality and self-concept” (Armstrong et. al., 2015b, p. 115).

Consumers that bought the Google Glass product would most likely be situated in a higher socioeconomic

class, white-collared professions, and be very technologically savvy (Curtis, 2015; Duffy, 2013; Wohlsen,

2015). This product is a luxury item, thus, consumers would most likely need a large disposable income

to buy this product. Consumers may also be labelled as innovators since it was a product in the trial phase

(Armstrong et. al., 2015b, p. 126). The consumer may also have an adventurous lifestyle, where they

would participate in activities demonstrated in the Google Glass commercials, such as: skydiving,

bicycling, travelling and so on (Google, 2013). Google Glass consumers may also follow the most current

fashion trends, since the device was featured on fashion magazines like Vogue (Bilton, 2015). Thus,

consumers with the aforementioned income level, occupations and lifestyles would most likely buy the

Google Glass. Therefore, personal influences would also contribute to consumers’ purchasing decisions.

Hence, the Google Glass was affected by social and personal factors on consumer buying

behaviour. These factors affect how consumers look at the product and their chances of buying it and

recommending it to others (Armstrong et.al., 2015b, p. 107-115). It was demonstrated that through social

factors, consumers would be highly influenced by the groups that they belong to and the opinions of their

group members, family and friends (Armstrong et.al, 2015b, p. 113-114). It was also demonstrated that

through personal factors, consumers would be highly influenced by their occupation, buying ability, and

lifestyles (Armstrong et.al, 2015b, p. 115). As a result, this information helps companies, like Google,

predict which consumers’ buying behaviours, which groups they should market to and the projection of

sales.

Page 15: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 15

Google Glass Point of Difference UNIQUE SELLING PROPOSITION & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

Google was one of the first to develop this innovative idea of a wearable smart device that enables

an individual to engage in a virtual surrounding (Robbins, 2012; Google Inc., 2015e). This concept allows

the individual to verbally command their device to take pictures, record videos, find directions, shop and

communicate with others (Elizetxe, 2014; Robbins, 2012; Google Inc., 2015e). The wearable device also

allows individuals to download smartphone applications such as: an application that can scan barcodes

and do price comparisons (Elizetxe, 2014). This idea was very unique and was never attempted before

Google introduced it (Duffy, 2013; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015). Google’s unique selling proposition

consists of Google specific applications designed for the Google Glass wear, on top of the applications

discussed above (Eadicicco, 2013). For instance, these applications include: Google Search, Turn-by-

Turn directions, Voice translations, Hand Gesture and Voice Commands, Virtual Reminders and Google

Now Support (Eadicicco, 2013). These applications were specific to the Google Glass and other similar

wearable smart technology did not possess them. The Google Glass is also differentiated from other

similar devices by the Google brand. As previously mentioned, Google “serves millions of people around

the world [,][so by having the Google stamp, consumers would trust the quality of the device compared to

other companies]” (Google Inc., 2015b). This is one of the product’s major competitive advantages.

Another major competitive advantage is Google’s team of developers; they are made up of individuals

that are highly qualified and are known to be the best developers in the world (Miller & Bilton, 2011). For

instance, two of the team members are professors at Stanford and some were past employees from

Microsoft (Miller & Bilton, 2011). As a result, Google attempts to use the “more for more” approach to

justify their selling price (Armstrong et.al, 2015a, p. 93-94). Therefore, the Google Glass offers many

unique features and many advantages compared to their competitors.

Google Glass Key Competitors The two main competitors with the Google Glass product are Meta Pro and Vuzix Smart Glasses

M100. These companies offer the same type of device, more applications and distribution chains, and all

at a lower cost (F.A., 2013; Grubb, 2014; Heater, 2014; iReviews, 2014; Lee, 2014; Meta-View, 2014;

Swider, 2013). To demonstrate this, an analysis on the strengths and weaknesses will be conducted below

on Meta Pro and Vuzix Smart Glasses M100, then a discussion on how these companies impact the

Google Glass will be deliberated.

Page 16: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 16

META PRO COMPARISONS

Strengths

The biggest strength that Meta Pro has over the Google Glass is the cost (F.A., 2013). The older

models of the Meta Pro wearable smart technology sold for $667 dollars, while the Google Glass sold for

$1500 dollars (F.A., 2013; Booton, 2015; Strange, 2014). The cost was the most negative impact on the

Google Glass and this gives the consumers to buy a similar device for less (Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015;

Stein, 2013a). The Meta Pro wearable smart technology also has a stylish look that is very similar to Ray

Bans, which negatively impacts the Google Glass since it was criticized to be too simplistic and chunky

(iReviews, 2014; Curtis, 2015; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015; Wohlsen, 2015). Meta Pro and Google have

good supply chains, where their products were ready for distribution (Meta-View, 2014; Booton, 2015;

Strange, 2014). However, the Meta Pro devices are still in production, while the Google Glass devices are

discontinued (Curtis, 2015). In addition, the Meta Pro technology was reviewed as a better technological

device compared to the Google Glass (Heater, 2014; Meta-View, 2014). For instance, the Meta Pro has a

“Core i5 [processing chip, where it was one of the newest processors in the market” (Heater, 2014). Meta

Pro also has more innovative features compared to the Google Glass, such as: “binocular display[s][with

many] sensors to perceive the real world and [merge it] with the digital world” (Meta-View, 2014). The

Google Glass was developed with lower quality cameras and the same processor as a Galaxy Nexus

(Woo, n.d.). Thus, the Google Glass was developed with older processing systems, while the Meta Pro

was developed with the newer processing systems, and as a result, the Meta Pro is reviewed as faster and

better (Heater, 2014; Meta-View, 2014; Woo, n.d.). Therefore, there are many more strengths that the

Meta Pro has over the Google Glass, such as the price, processing systems and the overall look of the

device, and all these factors can negatively impact the sales of the Google Glass.

Weaknesses

The biggest weakness that the newer models of Meta Pro is the price, where it costs almost double

the Google Glass wear (Swider, 2013). The newer models of the Meta Pro costs $2985 dollars, while the

Google Glass still costs $1500 on third party sites (Swider, 2013). Meta Pro was criticized for marketing

only to individuals with the same high class status as the Fictional Character from Iron Man, “Tony

Stark” (Swider, 2013). Another weakness that Meta Pro has is that they have a very small team and they

are not as qualified as Google’s Project X’s employees (iReviews, 2014; Miller & Bilton, 2011; Shontell,

2012). In addition, the Meta Pro device weighs more than the Google Glass and this is a major

disadvantage, since the Google Glass was criticized to be too bulky (iReviews, 2014; Curtis, 2015;

Danova, 2013; Mick, 2015; Wohlsen, 2015). Lastly, the Meta Pro and Google Glass devices were

criticized by consumers that it may be too innovative for its time, where individuals may not be as

Page 17: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 17

accepting of this technology (Grubb, 2014; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2014). Thus, there are many cultural

barriers, where individuals are not accepting of this type of technology yet, as well as, economic and

physical factors that affect the Google Glass and Meta Pro technology. Therefore, there are many similar

weaknesses that Meta Pro and Google Glass possess, as well as, weaknesses that may push consumers to

purchase the Google Glass over the Meta Pro devices.

VUZIX SMART GLASSES M100 COMPARISONS

Strengths

Vuzik Smart Glasses M100 has the same strength as Meta Pro over the Google Glass: the price

(Swider, 2013). Vuzik Smart Glasses M100 costs $999.99 dollars, while the Google Glass costs $1,500

dollars (Swider, 2013; Booton, 2015; Strange, 2014). This means that consumers have the option to buy

cheaper and similar wearable smart technology with other companies, rather than purchasing the Google

Glass device. In addition, the Vuzik Smart Glasses M100 also has the same type of applications that the

Google Glass possesses. For instance, these smart glasses are also compatible to Android Apps, which

means that current Android users can use their smart phones interchangeably with their wearable smart

technology (Grubb, 2014). Another feature that the Vuzik Smart Glasses M100 has is that it has an

application that can translate languages just by looking at an item (Lee, 2014). Another strength that the

Vuzik Smart Glasses M100 has is a good team, where they were able to finish the product before Google,

and it was in its final developments, while Google only released its beta models (Swider, 2013).

Weaknesses

Vuzik Smart Glasses M100 also has many weaknesses in their devices, such as: low functionality,

technological developments and low brand recognition (Lee, 2014; Stein, 2013; Swider, 2013). The Vuzik

Smart Glasses M100 has an older USB port, limited storage of 4 GB, no touch screen technology, while

the Google Glass device has 16 GB, touch screen features and more storage (Swider, 2013; Lee, 2014).

Thus, the Google Glass costs more than the Vuzik Smart Glasses M100 but it has better features. In addition,

it takes a long time to set up the Vuzik Smart Glasses M100, since the arms of the glasses are not as flexible

and it is difficult to bend to fit the user, while the Google Glass device is very adjustable and can just be

used right away (Lee, 2014; Google Inc., 2015e). Furthermore, the brand of the Vuzik Smart Glasses M100

is not as well known, and when it is compared to the Google Glass device, consumers would trust the

Google brand more (Swider, 2013; Google Inc., 2015b). There is however, one main concern that the Vuzik

Smart Glasses M100 and Google Glass devices have in common, where the consumers have safety concerns

(Stein, 2013; Markham, 2012; Cipriano, 2014). Consumers are concerned that these devices can be a

distraction on the road, where it would place the user and other individuals in danger (Stein, 2013;

Markham, 2012; Cipriano, 2014). Therefore, Vuzik Smart Glasses M100 has many technological

Page 18: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 18

weaknesses that could benefit the sales of the Google Glass, and it also has the same safety concerns that

consumers have on the Google Glass as well.

Summary To conclude, the Google Glass device had many strengths and weaknesses in their technological

developments and marketing strategies. Google was very successful in developing this innovative idea of

the wearable smart technology, where it holds a large amount of potential for future developments. Google

also marketed their device very well, where they had a strong pull strategy to promote their device. They

were very successful in incorporating celebrity endorsements, magazine features and television shows into

their marketing strategies (Bilton, 2015). This enabled a large amount of consumers to notice this product

and develop interest towards it. However, the two major downfalls of the Google Glass were the

technological development and the release of the product (Bilton, 2015; Mick, 2015). The Google Glass

device was released way before the device was even finished, and this led to the Glass Explorers to

negatively review their product (Mick, 2015; Poltrack, 2014). This had a major negative impact on the

device since their innovators demonstrated a negative view towards their product, which in turn, led other

potential consumers away from it. This product was also not fully accepted by today’s society since they

view it as an invasion of privacy and distractions on the road (Arthur, 2013; Bilton, 2015; Cipriano, 2014;

Markham, 2012; Metz, 2015; Robbins 2012). As a result, the development of original Google Glass project

has been abandoned, but there are huge potentials for future models of this device.

References

Page 19: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 19

Arthur, C. (2013, May 1). Google Glass security failings may threaten owner’s privacy. The Guardian.

Retrieved November 9, 2015 from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/01/

google-glass-security-privacy-risk

Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., Trifts, V. & Buckwitz, V.A. (2015a). Introduction to Marketing: Chapter 3:

Segmentation, Targeting, and Positioning. Marketing: An Introduction (5th Eds), p. 118-119.

Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada.

Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., Trifts, V. & Buckwitz, V.A. (2015b). Chapter 4: Understanding Consumer

Buyer Behaviour. Marketing: An Introduction (5th Eds), p. 118-119. Toronto, ON: Pearson

Canada.

Bilton, N. (2015, February 4). Why Google Glass Broke. The New York Times. Retrieved November 7,

2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/style/why-google-glass-broke.html?_r=0

Bishop, B. (2013, April 26). Google Glass chipset revealed, uses same processor family as the Galaxy

Nexus. The Verge. Retrieved November 9, 2015 from http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/26/

4270878/google-glass-processor-and-memory-revealed-uses-same-cpu-family-as-galaxy-nexus

Booton, J. (2015, January 30). Why Google Glass wasn’t a failure. Market Watch. Retrieved November

11, 2015 from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-google-glass-wasnt-a-failure-2015-01-29

Cipriano, R. (2014, May 10). Google Glass Helps Pilots Straighten Up and Fly Right! Aviation

Marketing. Retrieved November 9, 2015 from http://www.aviationmarketing.aero/tag/google-

glass/

Collins, T.R. (2014, September 7). Google Glass Presents Opportunities, Challenges for

Otolaryngologists. ENT Today. Retrieved November 9, 2015 from http://www.enttoday.org/

article/google-glass-presents-opportunities-challenges-for-otolaryngologists/

Curtis, S. (2015, January 15). Google halts sales of Google Glass. The Telegraph. Retrieved November

7, 2015 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11349334/Google-halts-sales-of-

Google-Glass.html

Danova, T. (2013, December 31). Bi Intelligence Forecast: Google Glass will Become A

Mainstream Product And Sell Millions by 2016. Business Insider. Retrieved November 8, 2015

from http://www.businessinsider.com/google-glass-sales-projections-2013-11

Duffy, M. (2013, August 5). Google Glass Applications for Blind and Visually Impaired Users. Vision

Aware. Retrieved November 8, 2015 from http://www.visionaware.org/blog/visionaware-

blog/google-glass-applications-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-users/12

Eadicicco, L. (2013, March 26). Top 10 Features of Google Glass. Laptop Mag. Retrieved November 20,

2015 from http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/top-10-features-of-google-glass

Edwards, J. (2015, January 16). Google Ends Sales of Google Glass. Business Insider. Retrieved

Page 20: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 20

November 11, 2015 from http://www.businessinsider.com/google-ends-sales-of-google-glass-

2015-1

El-Arifi, N. (2014, June 26). Google Glass has the opportunity to transform the retail customer

experience. The Brand Republic Group. Retrieved November 9, 2015 from

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1300799/google-glass-opportunity-transform-retail-

customer-experience

Elizetxe, J. (2014, April 23). The Impact of Google Glass on Digital Marketing. Idea Lab. Retrieved

November 8, 2015 from http://mediashift.org/idealab/2014/04/the-impact-of-google-glass-on-

digital-marketing/

F.A. (2013, December 29). $3000 metaPro AR glasses now available for pre-order. Retrieved November

25, 2015, from http://www.phonearena.com/news/3000-metaPro-AR-glasses-now-available-for-

pre-order_id50774

Facebook (2015). Google Glass. Retrieved November 20, 2015 from http://www.facebook.com/Google

Glass/

Gadget Help (2014, August 7). Medical Students will be Broadcast operations using Google Glass

[Photograph]. Retrieved November 11, 2015 from http://gadget-help.com/medical-students-will-

be-broadcast-operations-using-google-glass/

Google (2013, February 20). How it feels [through the Google Glass] [Video file]. Retrieved November

20 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE

Google Developers (2015, October 13). Glass. Retrieved November 5, 2015 from

https://developers.google.com/glass/develop/overview

Google Inc. (2015a). About Google. Retrieved November 3, 2015 from https://www.google.com/about/

Google Inc. (2015b). Google Company. Retrieved November 3, 2015 from http://www.google.com/

company/

Google Inc. (2015c). Google Contacts. Retrieved November 9, 2015 from http://www.google.com/

contact/

Google Inc. (2015d). Google Products. Retrieved November 3, 2015 from http://www.google.com/

products/

Google Inc. (2015e). Google Glass Support. Retrieved November 15, 2015 from http://support.google.

com/glass/answer/3064128?hl=en

Grubb, B. (Ed.). (2014, May 30). Hands on with Meta Pro, the futuristic augmented reality glasses.

Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/hometech/hands-on-

with-meta-pro-the-futuristic-augmented-reality-glasses-20140529-zrsj8.html

Page 21: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 21

Heater, B. (2014, January 10). The MetaPro glasses do some pretty amazing things with augmented

reality. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/10/metapro/

Hartung, A. (2015, February 12). The Reason Why Google Glass, Amazon Fire Phone, and Segway all

Failed [Photograph]. Forbes. Retrieved November 23, 2015 from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2015/02/12/the-reason-why-google-glass-amazon-

firephone-and-segway-all-failed/

iReviews. (2014, August 20). Meta Pro Space Glasses. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://smart-

glasses.iReviews.com/meta-pro-space-glasses-review

Kern, C. (2014, October 31). Google Glass Provides Education, Healthcare Opportunities. Business

Solutions. Retrieved November 9, 2015 from http://www.bsminfo.com/doc/google-glass-

provides-education-healthcare-opportunities-0001

Lee, K. (2014, January 11). First Look: Vuzix M100 smartglasses. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/portable-devices/other-devices/first-look-vuzix-m100-the-

first-commercial-smart-glasses-1214423

Levit, A. (2013, July 18). What Google Glass Means for Your Work Day [Photograph]. Business 2

Community. Retrieved November 11, 2015 from http://www.business2community.com/tech-

gadgets/what-google-glass-means-for-your-work-day-0549196#PKtCwcsuMgFLW5Jh.97

Lou, E. (2015, Sept 1). Google revamps logo, tweaks iconic colours. The Star. Retrieved November 3,

2015 from http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/09/01/google-revamps-logo-tweaks-iconic-

colours.html

Markham, D. (2012, April 6). Google Glass: Vaporware, Next Big Thing, Helpful Green Gadget, or

Accident Waiting to Happen?. Tree Hugger. Retrieved November 8, 2015 from

http://www.treehugger.com/gadgets/google-glasses-vaporware-next-big-thing-helpful-green-

gadget-or-accident-waiting-happen.html

Meta-View (2014, April 9). A new year. A new era of computing. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from

http://blog.spaceglasses.com/post/82228579238/a-new-year-a-new-era-of-computing

Metz, R. (2015, July 24). Google Glass Finds a Second Act at Work. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved

November 10, 2015 from http://www.technologyreview.com/news/539606/google-glass-finds-a-

second-act-at-work/

Mick, J. (2015, January 16). Great Expectations: The Rise and Fall of Google Glass Explorer Edition.

Daily Tech. Retrieved November 8, 2015 from http://www.dailytech.com/Great+Expectations

+The+Rise+and+Fall+of+Google+Glass+Explorer+Edition/article37080.htm

Miller, C.C. & Bilton, N. (2011, November 13). Google’s Lab of Wildest Dreams. New York Times.

Page 22: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 22

Retrieved November 20, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/technology/at-google-x-a-top-secret-lab-dreaming-up-the-future.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Nunez, O. (2014, March 25). Google Glass Will Look Good Thanks To Its Alliance With Ray-Ban. Design and Trend. Retrieved November 11, 2015 from http://www.designntrend.com/articles/

12052/20140325/google-glass-will-look-good-thanks-to-its-alliance-with-ray-ban.htm Oliver, K. (2015, October 11). Google Glass 2: Everything you need to know. Techradar. Retrieved

November 11, 2015 from http://www.techradar.com/us/news/wearables/google-glass-2-release-date-price-features-1300484

Pogue, D. (2012, September 13). Google Glass and the Future of Technology. Pogue’s Posts. Retrieved November 10, 2015 from http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/google-glass-and-the-future-of-technology/?_r=0

Poltrack,V. (2014, March 24). Google Glass Announces Partnership with Luxottica. Glass Almanac. Retrieved November 15, 2015 from http://glassalmanac.com/google-glass-announces-partnership-luxottica/3040/

Reynolds, S. (2015, February 5). Why Google Glass Failed: A Marketing Lesson. Forbes. Retrieved November 11, 2015 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/siimonreynolds/2015/02/05/why-google-glass-failed

Robbins, B. (2012, June 28). Google Glass: what it means for business. The Guardian. Retrieved

November 8, 2015 from http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-

blog/2012/jun/28/google-glass-mobile-smartphones-tablets

Shontell, A. (2012, July 27). Where Are They Now: The First 21 Google Employees. Business Insider.

Retrieved November 11, 2015 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/siimonreynolds/2015/02/05/

why-google-glass-failed

Stein, S. (2013a, May 13). The 11 Google Glass improvements we hope I/O delivers. CNet. Retrieved

November 8, 2015 from http://www.cnet.com/news/the-11-google-glass-improvements-we-hope-

google-io-delivers/

Stein, S. (2013b, January 6). Wearing the future: Hands on with Vuzix M100 Smart Glasses. Retrieved

November 25, 2015, from http://www.cnet.com/products/vuzix-smart-glasses-m100-black/

Strange, A. (2014, May 14). New Google Glass Teardown Clais Device Costs Only $150 to Make.

Mashable. Retrieved November 11, 2015 from http://mashable.com/2015/05/14/google-glass-

teardown-150/#D0DV5_s5pkqc

Swider, M. (2013, December 18). Google Glass Competitors: What are they and how do they compare?

Tech Radar. Retrieved November 10, 2015 from http://www.techradar.com/us/news/portable-

devices/other-devices/google-glass-competitors-what-are-they-and-how-do-they-compare--

1207929

Swider, M. (2015, February 20). Google Glass review. Techradar. Retrieved November 11, 2015 from

http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/gadgets/google-glass-1152283/review

Page 23: Google Glass

GOOGLE GLASS 23

The Times of India. (2014, March 11). New Threat to Google Glass: A cheaper rival. Retrieved

November 9, 2015 from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/New-threat-to-

Google-Glass-A-cheaper-rival/articleshow/31844505.cms

Wohlsen, M. (2015, January 15). Even The Guy Who Designed The Ipod May Not be Able To Save

Google Glass. Wired. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from http://www.wired.com/2015/01/even-

guy-designed-ipod-might-able-save-google-glass/

Woo, B (n.d). Everything You Need To Know About Google Glass. Hongkiat. Retrieved November 10,

2015 from http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/google-glass/

Zambelich, A. (2015, January 15). Google Glass [Photograph]. Retrieved from

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/even-guy-designed-ipod-might-able-save-google-glass/