I play with words.

I got up this morning and realised that I had just one pair of jeans I could wear, from my closet. Laundry Day rarely gives us any choices that we like, and I’ve hated these particular jeans for a while now. It’s only this sort of occasion that I’d possibly wear them, when there was no other alternative. That’s when it hit me. This is exactly the reason Google Plus sucks. 

Now, don’t get me wrong. This isn’t a pro-Facebook, anti-Google post, there are plenty of those trawling through the infinite tubes of the interweb. I’d simply like to ask a single question to Google, that has been the foundation of all business success. Any company that has answered it accurately and satisfactory has seen growth. Here goes: 

“Why should I go with you, and not that other guy down the street? What do you have to offer that he doesn’t?”

Again, I’m not taking the mickey out of Google Plus, or taking Facebook’s side, but quite honestly, I’m of the opinion that Google Plus is probably what Facebook would have looked like if the Winklevoss twins got exactly what they wanted, and the site was exactly on par with their code. 

From the very beginning, Google has unfortunately been in the position of playing catch-up with Facebook. It tried answering that question above by attacking the one weakness everybody admits that Facebook has, privacy.

• “Ill show you mine if you show me yours”

The introduction of Circles was certainly something new, and on the surface it certainly seems like a good idea to allow an opt-in feature, and evenly split up groups of friends, colleagues, co-workers, exes, family and idiots we generally avoid. But the real world does not behave like that. In the real world, you’re friendly, or you’re well-meaning and generally not a prick to certain people enough to never talk to them ever. Your boss, your girlfriend, your parents- they all share a certain degree of friendship with you, and certain degree of information with you. Over time, this may reduce or increase with your interaction with these people, but you can’t pigeon-hole every real life interaction to justify keeping them in a Circle that says ‘Close friends’ when tomorrow, one of them sleeps with your sister. Now you have to adjust it again. Then you realise your sister loves them. You re-evaluate this information and figure, why not get them back into the good circle. 

Consider this scenario. I’m an Aryan supremacist looking to recruit. Considering I’m Indian, this will be tough, but bear with the analogy for a minute. I get onto Google Plus, and quietly start making Circles based on the kind of people I interact with. I can have as many as I want and name them stuff like Jews, True Believers, Government Pigs, Heil Hitler Enthusiasts, etc. I’d be very interested to see whether Google can take me down for these views. So much for freedom to compartmentalize your ‘friends’ into Circles.   

You can probably see where I’m going with this. Compartmentalizing people like this is the height of stupidity.  Facebook has the same problem but it prefers to give users NO choice or very little, in defining relationships with other users, or custom lists. Not that hate groups and idiots don’t exist on Facebook, but at least they’re a little more out in the open. 

• Your brand

Another area where Google had to play catch up. It’s interesting to note that it took a certain degree of adoption and loyalty for Facebook to turn its attention towards marketers and brands on Facebook, and integrated Insights, Pages and Facebook for Marketing. Where it took them years of first understanding the needs of its users, Google had to rush with their company pages. One could argue that without ‘Search plus your world’  Google Plus company pages would have faced the same deserted look that most users have at the moment. For the longest time, Google was opposed to having company pages, and wanted real people. Then they had to take an about turn, embarrassed that the only way they could gain any traction on G+ was integrating brand identities. 

They did this in months. When it happened, it seemed like Google was floundering with its message. What exactly does Google Plus represent. An alternative environment to play games, and Hangout with people? Not enough users. A place to conference call or share ideas and opinions and read blogs. Not enough of them around. So I come back to my earlier question. 

What do you have for me, Google Plus? 

If the answer is that you look cooler, that’s not reason enough for me, and it’s certainly not reason enough for anyone else, and if you want people to use both, you may as well shut this down. People are lazy. They will not, repeat NOT invest the time and effort to waste time and hidden office hours to spend on TWO social interaction websites.

I had a weird dream last night. I was in the middle of Times Square in New York City, chasing a man down that had stolen my girlfriend’s purse. Ducking and weaving between hundreds of people going about their own business, I chased the guy for about ten blocks and much to my horror, I lost him. For about two minutes, until I realised that there was a better way of finding him. I dug into my pocket and out came Google Glasses. 

For those of you playing the home game, Google Glasses is touted to be the next big thing in technology, a device capable of taking pictures, making appointments, calendar reminders, texts and a whole lot more. In fact I’m pretty sure these glasses can (or eventually, with the right amount of research, will) do anything you want them to, rendering cell phones and PCs completely obsolete. For further information do take a look at their video.

In my dream scenario, I figure (if these Glasses are rolled out) I could quickly dial a police emergency number, upload a map of my location to their network via my Google Circles, log in to the nearest Place. In about two minutes, I would expect to see a patrol car appear, and two officers step out to take my statement, both wearing Google Glasses, and already setting up a 10 block perimeter to make sure the prick is boxed in.

Google would love if my dream came true.

I realise this may be a little early to call but Google is gambling on a lot of factors with this product. The first gamble is adoption. Putting aside the technological advantages of eyewear heads up displays, Google hopes that a general population has no problem wearing glasses. They are hoping that early adopters will compare them to Bluetooth devices that are worn on ears, and have seen some form of success (and ridicule in my case). 

Once they’ve breached that problem, their next issue is are they going to create all this technology on frames that are universally applicable on all glasses, or will they custom-fit and sell them at a retail store like Specsavers? Also, what about people that already wear glasses, do they now hold two pairs or do they fork up some dollar on laser eye surgery and ironically continue to wear glasses? 

Then come the whole host of problems that sites like Gizmodo and TechCrunch have flagged up within user comments, i.e. safety issues while driving, crossing the street, the ability to turn off notification systems, privacy issues, damage if they’re dropped etc. 

If this article seems like it’s jumping the gun, I do apologize. I’m sure the Google(x) team is taking a look at all of these problems within their expansive focus groups and tech teams. It’s a good move bringing it to the attention of the public, to discern for themselves whether they would wear them, but I get the feeling they’ve let the cat out of the bag a little bit here. 

If anyone remembers the kind of hype that existed before the first iPad was released, they’d agree that Apple had a distinct advantage in being ‘quietly brilliant’ without hundreds of people (including me) speculating on the device, suggesting alternative names that might not make women cringe once a month, price plans that were non-evil etc. The world has certainly become more social since then, but Apple as a product and consumer electronics company (first and foremost) understood the need to privacy while they worked on it. Google would do well to take a page out of their books. I understand that Google is essentially a digital product i.e. intangible in the real world, but if they want to make a switch with glasses or wallets, or anything that is physically solid, they need to be damn sure that they’ve crossed all the ‘t’s and dotted all the ‘i’s, before they say anything to the public. 

Anyone can make a video with the words ‘Some Day…’ on it, but the scrutiny that follows said video needs to be answered with a good product eventually

. 
I just hope that in their collective orgasmic planning, Google do not forget the primary function of glasses. To help you see better. As cliched as this might seem, Project Glass (at this stage) reminds me of that age old Internet joke based on the fact that Americans spent millions of dollars to create a zero-gravity compliant ink pen, while the Russians wrote with pencils in space. If there is anything that is clearly a business truth it is this: Concepts for products do not compete with other concepts. Actual products do.
 

Of course I might be wrong, hell, it would be awesome if I were, but for now, these are my thoughts on Google Glasses.