There are countless products that have failed to reach a stable market or even make it out of the preliminary stages of research and development. The product failure I decided to analyze is the Google Glasses released in 2013. According to CBInsights, Google Glasses ranked 14th in “When Business Innovation Goes Wrong: The 132 Biggest Product Failures of All times". I chose this product mainly because I wanted to delve deeper into why the market didn't accept it and how this affected Google's reputation. The introduction of these glasses on the market can be considered a flop for the following main reasons: safety, design, functionality and price. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Despite being one of the top search engines, their glasses were not up to customer expectations. Despite consumer interest in the latest technology, for some reason glasses lacked that differentiating factor. As for safety, people are generally aware of the radioactive waves emitted by cell phones and other devices, however something uncomfortably close to the eyes. Many people take precautions before physically leaving devices behind 24/7, so imagine the discomfort consumers would experience wearing electrically powered glasses in addition to persistent devices. In addition to security, many articles point out that Google glasses threaten the idea of ​​"privacy and piracy." The BusinessCommunity article states that "this means that the person sitting in front of you on the subway or at the next table may take a photo or videos of you," which further triggers others to make this product dangerous. It fails to protect the ethical principles of security and basic identity by having the camera recording function integrated into such a device. There is no telling how many ethical boundaries are crossed by recording our surroundings so secretly. The article also mentions how this product threatened the film industry by exploiting the camera's features to record in theaters. Clearly, this was also not favored from a commercial perspective, which contributes to why the glasses failed. Design From a consumer perspective, I believe the design of accessories is key. Typically, successful products look good to buyers upon initial contact. If the product design is poorly crafted or does not live up to customer expectations, the products will eventually fail and be placed in the pool of substitutes. This especially applies to glasses. Not only should glasses fulfill their function as a visual aid, but they must have some sort of redeeming design that intrigues customers to purchase them. And since prescription glasses usually rest on an individual's face, individuals are very sensitive to the design of the product and how it flatters the face. Since the design of Google glasses has been perceived as intimidating in its structure due to the large camera attached to one of the lenses and the thick wiring, the product seems to distract the customer's image instead of enhancing it. Not only does the visual appearance interfere with a consumer's self-esteem in wearing large glasses as a replacement for regular glasses or contact lenses, but it also interrupts the flow of how consumers interact with each other. Product design is a huge red flag in terms of product distractionconsumers with respect to improving their experience. One of the biggest questions consumers faced after hearing about this product was determining its actual functionality. Unlike the extensive customer service provided by Amazon or the innovative devices Apple produces, each of these companies has expanded their product line based on what consumers actually want or need. Because in every step these two companies rather improved features of some products (after the initial launch of the innovative one), they were much more successful than Google Glass. These companies' launches were successful because they met consumer demands or seized the opportunity to capitalize on the demands consumers will want after launch. Google Glasses does not meet the criteria of a particular consumer demand. The article further mentions: “Some argued that it should be worn at all times, while others believed that it should only be used in certain situations. This is also the worst reason why Google Glass never took off.” Consumers clearly had no idea what the purpose of this new product was. The demand they were trying to satisfy was unclear, the role in consumers' lives was unclear, which therefore contributed to the failure of this product. Depending on customer loyalty, features, quality, service, etc., consumers' willingness to pay for different goods varies. If a company enters a new market it is understood that it can reserve a particular price for the goods it produces. A pair of Google glasses ranges from $1000-1500, which exceeds the prices of regular retail glasses. According to the Cost Health article, experts say that "Prices vary greatly, depending on the type of frame, lenses and type of retailer. Glasses can cost as little as $8 or as much as $600 for those without insurance For the most famous brands, prices can range between $50 and $1,000 or more.” The maximum of $600 shown in this example is a price that consumers are actually willing to pay because they may consider these glasses a necessity. with the main purpose of helping vision problems. The need for glasses up to a base price of around $600, which perform their most important function, consumers can also choose to customize these glasses with different brands, colors, etc. With the given primary function feature and the ability to customize the product already existing on the market, why would consumers be willing to spend almost $1000 more for Google glasses which, as we have already established, have an unclear role in life of the consumer. It's understandable that companies raise prices with the intent of covering development costs or increasing revenue, but the prices for these glasses are unachievable. This is another disadvantage that contributed to the failure of these Google glasses on the market. Obviously a lot of effort and resources went into research and development into creating these Google Glasses and they shouldn't go to waste. I recommend Google take the lead in two areas. One, it includes the change in the target market. The other, sticks to expanding their brand's other products or services and finds areas of opportunity elsewhere than wearable technology. The initial change to the target market may simply mean not launching and distributing this product to everyone, but instead having a focus in this audience. I believe this wearable technology could be of valuable use to computer scientists, engineers or doctors. Keep in mind:.