Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Running head: GOOGLE GLASS 1
Google Glass
Marketing Project Report
MRKT CB158 (Fall 2015)
Mohawk College
(Hartung, 2015)
GOOGLE GLASS 2	
Table of Contents
Google.....................................................................................
GOOGLE GLASS 3	
Google
ABOUT:
Google was founded by “Larry Page and Sergey Brin […] in
1998” (Google Inc., 2015b). Google ...
GOOGLE GLASS 4	
Environmental Scan: Macro Environment
TECHNOLOGICAL
The advancement of technology has opened a huge market...
GOOGLE GLASS 5	
or videos without the individuals’ permission (Markham, 2012). Another example would be compromising
the u...
GOOGLE GLASS 6	
STRENGTHS
• Operation: Good Supply Chain Management,
where it is very cheap to manufacture
($152.47) (Boot...
GOOGLE GLASS 7	
educate and train healthcare employees
(Collins, 2014; Kern, 2014).
Profiling Target Buyers
GEOGRAPHIC SEG...
GOOGLE GLASS 8	
class individuals, that are not as technologically savvy, to search for directions, take photographs and
v...
GOOGLE GLASS 9	
Marketing Mix
PRODUCT
Product Features
The development of the Google Glass was very innovative,
where a we...
GOOGLE GLASS 10	
Thus, Google does provide a core customer value, various features and after-purchase services for the
Goo...
GOOGLE GLASS 11	
to being released (Bilton, 2015). In the Growth Stage, the unfinished beta model was sold to Google’s
Gla...
GOOGLE GLASS 12	
PROMOTIONAL MIX
Google used two promotional tools for their Google Glass product: Public Relations and Ad...
GOOGLE GLASS 13	
According to the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Google struggled to satisfy the second stage of the
pyramid...
GOOGLE GLASS 14	
they followed the development of the product (Armstrong et.al., 2015b, p. 111-112). There is a Google
Gla...
GOOGLE GLASS 15	
Google Glass Point of Difference
UNIQUE SELLING PROPOSITION & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
Google was one of the...
GOOGLE GLASS 16	
META PRO COMPARISONS
Strengths
The biggest strength that Meta Pro has over the Google Glass is the cost (...
GOOGLE GLASS 17	
accepting of this technology (Grubb, 2014; Danova, 2013; Mick, 2014). Thus, there are many cultural
barri...
GOOGLE GLASS 18	
weaknesses that could benefit the sales of the Google Glass, and it also has the same safety concerns tha...
GOOGLE GLASS 19	
Arthur, C. (2013, May 1). Google Glass security failings may threaten owner’s privacy. The Guardian.
Retr...
GOOGLE GLASS 20	
November 11, 2015 from http://www.businessinsider.com/google-ends-sales-of-google-glass-
2015-1
El-Arifi,...
GOOGLE GLASS 21	
Heater, B. (2014, January 10). The MetaPro glasses do some pretty amazing things with augmented
reality. ...
GOOGLE GLASS 22	
Retrieved November 20, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/technology/at-google-x-
a-top-secret-l...
GOOGLE GLASS 23	
The Times of India. (2014, March 11). New Threat to Google Glass: A cheaper rival. Retrieved
November 9, ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Google Glass

4,456 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Google Glass

  1. 1. Running head: GOOGLE GLASS 1 Google Glass Marketing Project Report MRKT CB158 (Fall 2015) Mohawk College (Hartung, 2015)
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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)
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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.)
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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)
  9. 9. 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)
  10. 10. 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 Production Development Introduction Stage Growth Maturity Stage Decline Estimated Trend Stages of Product Life Cycle Google Glass Estimated Sales (2012-2015)
  11. 11. 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.
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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.
  15. 15. 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.
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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.
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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/

×