Analysis Of Factors That Contributed To The Failure Of Google Glass

Abstract

This assignment works with the understanding of how regulations and standards are significant to be followed instead of launching a particular product or service. This report works with the organization of Google and its product Google glasses (Google.com, 2020). This delves deep to drive the understanding of how the organization has contributed towards a way to undermine a method to win over the competition.

Company information

Google LLC is a multinational firm that works to specialize in services that are internet related and barges in products associated with the internet. The organization works with organizing the world's information and work towards making it universally approachable and useful to be worked with. The organization is dedicated to improving the lives of people and it is still the same as it was when it began (Barnett, 2018). The organization works with a promise of protecting its users online with tools that are industry-defining, features and different principles. The organization has also worked with educational programs for children.

The organization has invested in different opportunities to expand its functions across the globe. They have been ensuring that more people have been invested with skills that help them succeed in the digital world. The organization has worked to close gaps that have been administered in education with the inclusion of technology, training and other pivotal tools. Google works in a world wherein progress, diversity, equitable outcomes and inclusion can be termed as realities both within and outside the workplace. It has been working to build a diverse workforce and leading change in society (Brock & Migone, 2018).

Product information

Google glasses have been a brand of smart glasses with a display of optic head that has a shape of a pair of glasses that is worn on the eyes (Google.com, 2020). The product Google glassworks with displaying information in a mannerism that is like a smartphone that includes the handsfree format. The wearers work to communicate with the use of the internet with the help of natural language voice command. The glass was an android device which worked with augmented reality that used visual, audio and location-based inputs. This product had worked with an operating system that was based on the android platform. The application was able to run an application virtualization tool that was termed as the glassware that had been optimized for the device (Mapari, Krishnamurty, & Anil, 2018). The glass had built-in wifi and Bluetooth connection and also a camera to take photographs.

The main features associated with the Google glass is the tiny semi-transparent screen located in the corner upper right of the glass. This contributed to 5% of the total wearable field of the glass and is responsible to work with information to the user. The option to use Google search engine through the glasses was also available.

Regulation or standard it failed to address

Google Glasses has worked with privacy and piracy concerns that have created concerns for a lot of individual's. It has created issues in cinema theatres wherein people are pulled out as the movie is being recorded by the device creating privacy concerns. The Privacy Act 1983 can also be included to work with the harm done to the privacy of people associated with the use of the glass (Noel & Babor, 2017). The privacy threat is associated with the people who are willing to stay anonymous. The aspect of the glass bringing in issues in the legal field of road safety is another concern wherein the concept of hands-free has been redefined by Google glass but it can also lead to significant issues for the user during a journey (Lawblog.legalmatch.com, 2014). The distraction front is significant to be administered and this will be performed by the Google glass itself. There is another issue associated with the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that does not allow a third person to work with information about the health of patients.

The glass lets the doctors record the information that is not a permissible act. There are issues of intellectual property that are worth worrying about and have contributed to developing a negative impact on the product and its sales. The Canadian Intellectual Property Law comes into play that works to govern the aspect of regulating the exploitation of intellectual property in Canada. The lines of privacy and acceptance of technology use are being hampered with the introduction of Google glasses and it has brought in changes in the system of legal boundaries set by a nation (Tabiei & Zhang, 2017). The CSA Standard Z94.3.1-16 works with the standard eyeglass that is permissible in the country and organizations need to follow the standard.

Time and money spent

The glass had a tag price of $1500 and there has been enough debate introduced about how this can be justified. The cost associated has been analyzed to be not more than $225 with all the components being associated with the device. The price was being set with the aspect of working with people including in an item of expenditure to work with wearable and mobile technology and the aspect of glass has been a big chance for the organization (Google.com, 2020). It started unveiling the product in 2012 and started its sales in the year 2013. The first device was made available by mail in 2014 that lead to significant privacy concern.

Corrective action is taken or not

Corrective actions were not well taken by the organization against the threat that was posted in associated with the product. The only option introduced by the organization was discontinuing the product and making a statement those changes will be introduced in the product. The organization has worked with a new path that deviates concentration from different users to workers and it is known as the Glass Enterprise Edition 2. The smart watch category has evolved and changed the way the market has been operating over the years for the organization (Tedds, 2018). The AR plan of Google is still a long way and it needs to work with plans to win over the issue associated with the glasses. It needs to address the people and undermine what issue has been faced as a part of the product being launched in the market.

Recommendation

Google could have launched the product on a basis of working with a purpose of supporting education and the Google glass could have been working with the help of recording different tutorials and using it to understand different concepts and theories. The Google glass could work with the aspect of guide that can help with information of places the individual would have cross bringing in a better idea of the place and its significance. The promotion information can be generated about the place the glass is addressing and helping the user to have better information about the place. The glass could have been worked as a help to foreign tourists to lead out information and help with the language preference of the place. This could have enhanced the aspect of tourism for the place and brought in better GDP for the nation. The glass could have been the best-preferred instrument for measuring and monitoring health.

Conclusion

Google could have worked with the legal front about the launch of the product and the revolution could have lived for a longer period. The product life cycle was short-lived and it did not reach out to the best possible customer base. The legal attributes are quintessential for all organizations to work with to create better hold on the market share.