Did Edward Snowden Ruin Google Glass?

Now that the Google Glass guinea pigs have had eight months to try out the biggest thing in wearable tech, the product’s short term prospects aren’t looking good and part of the reason is the NSA. Beyond costing tech companies untold billions, the fear of government surveillance is problematic for wearable tech. Privacy concerns make Glass socially awkward, according to long-time users.

Google unveiled its futuristic accessory to a wave of good press, aided by some smart marketing material, at a time when smartphone upgrades were starting to lose some luster and excitement. What was next? A smart TV? A digital watch?

The stars were aligned. Computerized spectacles intuitively made sense: ever-present, as to address our need to be constantly available and ready to share every possible moment, but out of the way enough so that we could carry on with business as usual. The stuff of sci-fi fantasies, we felt like the future had finally arrived. Plus, this was Google.

So when the first prototypes became available to the public on April 14th, there was an understandable amount of buzz. Google Glass was cool, even if it may have been kind of douchey to some. Being accepted to the Explorers program, which cost a hefty $1,500, felt like being invited to a hip party, a badge of honor that earned "mad Likes" on Facebook. Glass’s success appeared all but certain.

Two months later, Edward Snowden would turn the world upside down with his now infamous NSA leaks. No longer the subject of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists, government surveillance entered mainstream consciousness. Every American tech firm was implicated, including Google. Privacy concerns always existed, but they were limited to media critics, as they usually are, and arguably overblown. Overnight, it was on everyone’s mind.

At the very least, we were creeped out. Some of my more ambitious (or paranoid) friends started using PGP encryption. My sister put masking tape over her webcam. Suddenly, Google Glass wasn’t just a way to seamlessly share on-the-trot, livestream invasive surgeries, and make first-person porn, it became yet another conduit for NSA spying. Now it was kind of awkward.

Google Glass will only be successful if we think it’s sexy, which the company is acutely aware of. Like all information networks, its utility is directly correlated with how many people use it. Granted, first-mover status will predictably face the initial backlash from the egalitarian-minded, which Wired’s Mat Honan acknowledges, after sporting Glass for nearly a year.

“Wearing Glass separates you,” writes Honan in his smart year-end retrospective, 'I, Glasshole.' “It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the “explorer” program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face.”

New tech is by definition elitist: expensive with limited accessibility. But that’s okay; it’s the tried and true formula. Facebook began with only Harvard students. iPhones initially retailed for $600. We're suckers like that, we always want what we can’t have. Class divisions become a way to signify social standing, a superficial validation of our trendiness, like the iPod’s iconic white earbuds or Tesla’s distinctive Model S. We might call them assholes—which Honan experiences regularly first-hand from passers-by and, perhaps surprisingly, even tech-savvy Wired colleagues—but we’re secretly envious. Along those lines, Glass seemed destined for the same fate notes Honan, pointing out the “precious set of beautiful millennials you most commonly see wearing Glass in social settings here in the Bay Area.” In the case of Glass, the demographic is mostly white men.

The NSA revelations potentially nullify the exclusivity upside. No longer just an extravagant accessory, Glass is invasive, fashion sense notwithstanding, complicating already tenuous social rules regarding our gadget addiction.

“My Glass experiences have left me a little wary of wearables because I’m never sure where they’re welcome,” laments Honan. Of course, there’s plenty of other reasons why Glass “is socially awkward” and makes “people uncomfortable,” he writes, but privacy concerns only exacerbate social norms already difficult to overcome. Bluetooth headsets are rude because we can’t be sure if the person is having another conversation. Glass is problematic because we don’t know if we’re being recorded (or watched, according to the more sinister narrative).

Perennial tech evangelist Robert Scoble agrees. “Lots of people are afraid I'm recording them,” writes Scoble in a Google+ post predicting Glass is “doomed,” but admits they're less antsy once he shows them how it works. “Then they smile and forget I have them on,” he writes. Such active education takes time and effort. Most casual observers, having only seen Glass in passing, will stick to their first impression.

But the camera isn’t the only security concern, adds Scoble. More than everyone else, Glass watches you the most. “The really scary thing? The eye sensor,” he writes. “There's a reason why +Larry Page didn't answer my question at last year's Google IO: that thing can probably tell whether you are drunk or sober (think about THAT tonight). It also can probably tell you when you are checking out someone you shouldn't be (wait until the wife gets an alert about THAT).”

Mark Zuckerberg didn’t have to deal with privacy issues until after the fact, and we were already hooked. The current climate of mistrust could prove a particularly tough PR hurdle to climb, leaving Business Insider’s Jay Yarow to conclude, among other reasons, that there’s “a good chance that Glass is a fundamentally flawed product.” Not even Google’s bottomless financial firepower and growing cultural clout can save a promising but misguided concept, if Google+ is any indication.

Unlike a touchscreen smartphone or an electric car, Glass represents a complete paradigm shift in how we interact with technology. Consequently, Honan isn't sure where they're suitable. He doesn't wear them on the subway because they could get jacked. He doesn't wear them to dinner because he's a gentleman. He doesn't wear them to the bar because, well, would you?

Then there's the issue of perception. Users aren't simply browsing the mobile web more efficiently or weening themselves off fossil fuels, they're making a bold, unavoidable statement with respect to the integration between man and machine. While your smartphone and your car often stay hidden in your pocket or your garage, Glass is literally on and in your face. We won’t learn new tricks unless they're socially acceptable or inherently useful and we won't wear them until the desired sex finds it attractive. The jury's still out on whether or not Glass will get you laid (doubtful), or, at the very least, not ruin your chances, but Honan admits that "sometimes it scares children."

Right now, Glass is both culturally risky and visually jarring. In fact, even Google’s own employees are skeptical or unwilling, a worrying sign now that the initial hype has died down.

“I rarely see Google employees wearing their's anymore,” writes Scoble. “Most say ‘I just don't like advertising that I work for Google.’ I understand that. Quite a few people assume I work for Google when they see me with mine. I just hope it doesn't mean that Google's average employee won't support it.’”

This was where Steve Jobs truly shone. Beyond producing an elegant product, which Glass certainly is, he was able to galvanize both companies and consumers to adopt his latest and greatest, ably closing groundbreaking licensing deals and convincing fanboys to wait in line for days.

As Scoble notes, Microsoft created a slew of working tablets in the '90s, but was never able to make us believe we actually wanted or needed them. While Google is relishing some sweet press coverage as of late, from its self-driving cars to its robo-acquisitions, they remain pipe dreams. Larry Page and co. have arguably yet to introduce a true game-changer. Google has excelled at providing basic, familiar utility—like Maps, YouTube, Gmail, and Docs/Drive—but the search giant has struggled to drive novel behavior, whether it’s playing catch-up with its own social network, or truly innovating with funky projects like Wave and Buzz, neat ideas that never caught on.

To be fair, we’re speculating on a product that has yet to be released; it’s expected some time later this year. Plenty will change in that time, including a fresh, more seamless design (Google is partnering with Warby Parker), improved battery life, and the development of still unknown killer features and apps. Google’s communications honchos are also undoubtedly contemplating a marketing campaign that will simultaneously mitigate snooping concerns and remind us why wearing a computer on our head is insanely great, which they admirably achieved the first time around before Snowden crashed the party. Expect plenty more celebrity endorsements and trendy videos.

It remains to be seen just how seriously the public takes privacy this time around. History indicates otherwise, and those passionate about Glass's revolutionary potential likely won't care.

Chances are, however, like Google’s other notable "moonshot" projects, Glass is still ahead of its time and fresh privacy concerns will only delay its expected relevancy. Scoble predicts the market won’t be ready until 2016. Others, like Yarow, wonder if it was ever meant to be. For now, Glass is too expensive, too gimmicky, and, thanks to Snowden, a little too creepy.

If you’re like me, and presumably a few others, you get that wearable tech, in one form or another, is probably inevitable. As a species, we're pretty good at adapting to new norms. That being said, though I wouldn't bet against Glass, I'm not itching to jump the gate either. But we'll certainly make a point to tease our friends who do.

@sfnuop