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...........................................................................................................................................................................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
 (Lou, 2015)
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.
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
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
GOOGLE GLASS
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)
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
6
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)
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.)
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
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)

 (Zambelich, 2015)
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).
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

Google Glass Estimated Sales (2012-2015)

Estimated Trend

Growt
ProductionDevelopment

Maturity
Introduction

Stage

Decline
Stage

Stages of 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
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.
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

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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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: Unders tanding
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
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
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.
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
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/