I think the “Google glass” lies at the “?” stage of BCG matrix and development or introduction (i donot know if it is launched or not) of the PLC.It remains to be seen if the “Google Glass” can turn in to the “star” and later " cash cow" for its company. 
That’s because they aren’t phones anymore. They are personal computers. If all you did on it was talk, it would be pretty stupid to make it big, right?
Anyway, the current edition of Google glass is basically just to get the bugs out of the technology and test out the hardware until they get an aesthetically pleasing (i.e. doesn’t look like tech), very functional Google glass that people will actually wear. Glass XE is really a dev kit, from what I understand, so there is no real reason to buy Google glass until they come out with a consumer release that has all of the great apps that actually make the hardware worth anything.
Google glass and similar products are going to be awesome and very popular. There are so many applications I can’t list them all here, but, for example, imagine hands free video conferencing or skiing or mountain biking with constant speed, elevation and gps info.
Right now Google glass is not a consumer electronics product, it a product in the development pipeline.
Edit: also, it’s important to realize that this tech doesn’t need to be worn daily to be successful. Maybe some people only use it for running, talking to friends and relatives at home while doing other activities (cooking, etc.) and for watching movies on planes/trains. I don’t bring my iPad with me everywhere, but that’s a pretty successful tech.
A tech company designing wearable devices is never going to work and only a small % of the population will walk around with these things because it makes you look like a total tool-bag.
A skim strategy focuses on putting a product in the hands of lead users or “influencers” — in the case of Google Glass, that would be tech bloggers and software developers. From there, the product can spread organically. Cell phones in the 1980s illustrate a skim strategy… Initially, mobile phones were marketed to physicians and real estate professionals who needed a way to remain in contact with others, but the devices eventually went mainstream.
Promotional campaign for “Google glass” will be interesting.On one hand their ads will try to target the self esteem needs of the consumers and on the other hand consumers would like to stay away from a product which causes social awkwardness (as bchad has already mentioned that you may be isolated from a group if you are using the “Google Glass.”).Thus its “Self esteem needs” vs “Social needs” for us.Looks like an interesting battle!! 
Professor Smith? Is that you?
I think there will be A LOT of people benefiting potentially from Google glass or somethign similar, certainly people in specific industries they can integrate it with their jobs and make their work easier, i am sure about that.
But is Google glass the next ipod? i don’t think so, certainly i don’t think normal consumers would find the need to buy a pair of glasses so they can have messages pop up in front of their eyes and take pictures by blinking…
So, here’s an interesting question;
If you’re wearing your google glasses and are a bit drunk and then walk across a road and get hit by a moving car then who would be to blame for the accident?.. .I mean, would the pedestrian be to blame given that he/she was playing on their new gadget and wasnt paying attention to the road?
I can’t figure out if rahul roy is mocking these overly simplified (and practically useless) business concepts or making a serious attempt at analyzing google glasses.
Not a lawyer here, but my understanding is that it totally depends whether or not the drunk pedestrian was crossing the street in a lawful manner. If it was his right of way and got hit, it’s clearly not his fault whether he’s intoxicated or not. Less clear is a situation where he doesn’t have right of way but still crosses.
[quote=“ZeroBonus”]
I can’t figure out if rahul roy is mocking these overly simplified (and practically useless) business concepts or making a serious attempt at analyzing google glasses.
[/quote
Some say CFA is “practically useless” while for others it is an important part of their professional life.Similarly for you the above mentioned concepts may be “practically useless” while for others it may be useful.At the end of the day it all depends on your perception. ![smiley]
(http://www.analystforum.com/sites/all/libraries/ckeditor/plugins/smiley/images/regular_smile.gif “smiley”)
Some say CFA is “practically useless” while for others it is an important part of their professional life.Similarly for you the above mentioned concepts may be “practically useless” while for others it may be useful.At the end of the day it all depends on your perception. 
So…
You were being serious?
Again i will leave it on your perception.
The only perception that matters is what Google Glass says
Those img inserts were rad big. I was like, wow!
+1
He’s the most mysterious poster since Frankie S. Arabia.
Are contact lenses next? Can I finally film amateur p0rn without any break in realism?
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/15/google-contact-lenses-cameras
The lenses were developed in the Google X lab and were featured in a patent filing dating from 2012, which was recently published by the US Patent and Trademark Office. The patent filing features a contact lens that includes an embedded circuit, camera and sensor. The control circuit could be linked wirelessly or via a wire to the camera and sensor. The sensor could be a light sensor, pressure sensor, temperature sensor or electrical field sensor, which may allow for people to gain a “sixth sense” of sorts.
These are now on sale in the UK for £1,000. I need a prescription pair as I am short-sighted but apparently those aren’t out yet.
Numi did you get a pair in the end? What are they like?