Evaluating Google Glass as a product: a reasoned verdict and lessons for wearables

Google Glass was a head-worn computer built into a glasses-style frame, with a small display just above the wearer's line of sight, a built-in camera, and voice and touchpad controls. The interviewer asks for your judgment: was Google Glass a good product, and why or why not? Take a clear position and support it. ```hint Define good first A product can fail in the market and still succeed as a technology or in a narrower setting. Decide what standard you are judging against before you give a verdict. ``` ### Clarifying Questions - Should I judge Glass by its consumer launch, by the later version sold to businesses, or both? - Does "good" mean value to the wearer, success for Google as a business, or what it advanced for wearable computing? - Should I judge with hindsight, or only by what could reasonably have been known when it launched? ### What a Strong Answer Covers - An explicit definition of "good" (value to the user, business viability, technical feasibility, and acceptability to the people around the wearer) applied one test at a time. - A clear verdict, including whether it differs between consumers and workplace use. - Reasons tied specifically to Glass: the job it was meant to do, price and hardware limits, privacy concerns caused by the camera, and how it was launched. - Lessons a product manager would carry into a new wearable or augmented-reality product. ### Follow-up Questions - If you had been the product manager for Glass in the year before its launch, what would you have changed first? - If you could target only one user segment, which would you choose and how would you validate it? - How do these lessons apply to camera-equipped smart glasses launching today?