The Technology Hype Lifecycle: Google Glass Edition

This post originally featured on Forbes.

Recent announcements from Google about the future of Glass naturally ignited an explosion of commentary in the tech media. For those of us in the Glass at Work world, the news that Glass has “graduated” from Google[x] into a true business unit headed by Tony Fadell is very promising. Yet many outlets’ coverage focused on the end of the Glass Explorer program for consumers, characterizing it as the final death knell for the technology.

So why the disconnect?

Historically, Glass has fallen victim to the technology hype lifecycle, and has done so more strongly than most technologies.

The Technology Hype Lifecycle

There’s a famous graph you’ve probably seen before on the Internet that charts the lifecycle of hype for new technologies.

But in a number of ways, this graph isn’t quite right – specifically, the plateau of productivity isn’t illustrated correctly. Technologies plateau far above the peak of inflated expectations.

Consider Mobile Computing

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Microsoft recognized the potential of mobile devices, so they built Windows Mobile and worked with OEMs to deliver Windows Mobile phones. They were way too early and made some fundamentally poor design decisions. They dreamed big, but failed to deliver on most of them. By 2004, BlackBerry was emerging with phones that could support basic business communications, contacts and calendar functions. Mobile computing was exiting the trough of disillusionment. Google saw this and bought Android in 2005. Rumors suggest Apple started development of the iPhone in late 2004/early 2005. They saw it too.

What no one foresaw was not only how fast the curve would ramp up, but the magnitude of the peak. Even in 2009, no one could have imagined Uber or Tinder or Snapchat, let alone 2007. Even today, we still do not know where the curve will plateau. How could Microsoft, or anyone else for that matter, have seen the potential of mobile computing in 1999 when they committed to building the (failed) future of mobile computing?

The mobile computing hype cycle graph actually looks something more like this.

Who knows which of today’s Series A and Series B stage startups are the next Uber? Kevin Spain from Emergence Capital has recently been evangelizing that today’s enterprise mobility market resembles that of the cloud in 2004. If that’s the case (and given mobile’s incredible penetration today), there is only one inevitable conclusion: mobile is eating everything.

So What About Glass?

Right now, in early 2015, Glass seems to be deep in the trough of disillusionment. The media has been hammering Glass lately, declaring its demise and failure, and before today’s announcement, Google itself was very quiet about Glass’s future. For the record, Glass is not just alive and well, but thriving in professional and enterprise use cases.

But what’s much more important isn’t Glass’s near-miss with death, but its tremendous potential. Glass is today where mobile computing was in 2000: dreams seemingly shattered by early setbacks.

The Glass curve will look a lot more like the mobile curve than the famous generic curve. We are seeing tremendous growth as enterprises adopt Glass to solve painful economic problems that were previously unsolvable.

The Glass growth curve will not mirror the mobile growth curve identically. Glass will peak at a lower point on the hype cycle graph than smartphones did. Smart glasses simply don’t have the upside potential on a per-person basis that smartphones do. Glass competes with smartphones; smartphones compete with laptops. The marginal improvement from always-on-you smartphones to hands-free Glass is material, but not as large as the jump from sitting-only laptops to always-on-you smartphones. Moreover, the best use cases for Glass are for desk-less, hands-on workers; these workers typically earn substantially less than their white collar, desk-bound counterparts. Smartphones amplify the productivity of expensive workers; glasses multiply the productivity of less expensive workers.

Having said that, Glass is still nascent today. We are at the tip of the iceberg. There is tremendous potential to be had in hardware, software and services. Over the next few years, we will see tremendous innovation from startups and giants. Hardware experiences are going to diverge. Software developers will experiment and pioneer new user-interaction models. Cloud services will evolve and take on an increasing percentage of computing. We know nothing, which means we can still do anything.

Watches Are For Consumers, Glasses Are For The Enterprise

This post was originally featured on Wearables.com.

From watches to socks, shirts to wristbands, glasses to rings, wearables promise all kinds of features to make our lives better. Thus, everyone seems to be building new wearables or software to run on them. The hottest sectors for wearables currently are twofold: wristbands such as FitBit, Jawbone, Basis, Microsoft Band, Android Wear devices, and the Apple Watch (collectively dubbed “Smartwatches” for the rest of this post) and smart eyewear such as Google Glass, Meta, Vuzix, and more (henceforth “smart glasses“).

Smartwatches are primarily being adopted by consumers, and smart glasses by the enterprise, and their adoption is driven by widely different reasons. Why the split? 

It’s all about marginal utility

Many consumers react negatively to smart glasses like Google Glass because of two hardware traits: the outward-facing camera and the omnipresent screen. The general argument is that smart glasses come with both a massive invasion of privacy (via the camera), and the ultimate manifestation of our always connected culture (via the screen). Although these sentiments aren’t really valid, the fact that most people hold these opinions will slow adoption in the consumer market for at least a few years.

On the other hand, smartwatches don’t face many socio-cultural challenges. They just need to solve some basic consumer problems to create value and justify their cost. Indeed, there are all kinds of reasons for consumers to purchase a smartwatch, leading to to a burgeoning smartwatch market for consumers. The entrance of Apple entering the market is proof enough that we can expect fast growth in the consumer smartwatch space.

Enterprises, on the other hand, are much more objective buyers. Broadly speaking, they pay for products and services for one of two reasons: to reduce costs or to drive revenue.

What business problems can smartwatches solve that phones can’t?

The use of wearables in corporate wellness initiatives to reduce employer healthcare costs has shown some early success, in terms of ROI.

But in most cases, and particularly when we talk about leveraging wearables to help employees do their primary job, the business case for buying employees smartwatches is pretty thin. Smartwatches are basically an extension of the smartphone, but with additional, strict limitations around screen size and battery. It’s these restrictions that pose a problem for their use in day-to-day work. Though smartwatches are technically hands-free devices, they impose material restrictions on their wearers that will prevent wide-scale adoption for enterprise field applications:

• Smartwatches require the wearer to turn his/her arm, which may not not be possible in certain scenarios.
• Many field workers wear specialized gloves and sleeves that would prevent a watch from functioning correctly.
• Smartwatches can’t display much information because of the small screen.
• Smartwatches lack robust input mechanisms for documentation. 

On the other hand, smart glasses can be used in almost any hands-on situation, and are a perfect fit for mobile field workers:

• Smart glasses can rest comfortably under protective gear, and can be sanitized for use in sterile areas such as operating rooms and semi-conductor fabs (we've verified these use cases and many others at Pristine).
• Smart glasses offer large screens that can render more information
• Voice activation on smart glasses obviates any comprises in hand-based ergonomics
• Most smart glasses have a camera, a great tool for documentation and remote support and assistance.

This isn’t all theory, though.

Gartner predicts a $1B savings in the field service industry by 2017, a prophecy that industry players seem to be fulfilling. Companies from oilfield services to remote assistance are actively and publicly investigating ways to use smart glasses in their business. The manufacturing industry has been particularly quick to realize the value of smart glasses by deploying them on the factory floor.

Consider a production line: in this setting, perhaps more than any other, calculating the economic value of uptime is simple. Just count the number of widgets that roll off the line per day, multiply by revenue per item, and scale for % uptime. When an incremental reduction in downtime can recapture significant amounts of lost revenue, the math of smart glasses is rather simple. If a wearable-equipped onsite staff member can get a conveyor belt or laser etcher up and running quickly with the help of a remote expert, extended downtime is avoided, materially increasing revenue. Plus, the OEM has avoided travel expense for their field engineer, and satisfied their SLA at a dramatically lower cost. In other words, the price of glasses represents a mere fraction of the potential ROI.

At Pristine, we’re driving the very future outlined above. Our customers–spanning more than two dozen organizations across life sciences, field service, industrial equipment, and healthcare –empower their mobile workers to communicate, collaborate, and document in the field, 100% hands free. None of our customers are asking for watches. Why? Because watches don't make the workforce materially more productive.

The Virtuous Cycle of Sacrifice in Startups

I ask people to sacrifice dozens of times a day. I ask candidates and my team to sacrifice employment at bigger companies that pay more and expect less. I ask our investors to put the capital they went to such great lengths to raise behind us. I ask prospects to believe that our insanity can solve pressing business problems. I ask partners to expend their precious resources on us.

I ask literally everyone around me to give up something substantial. I am always asking. Thus I am always taking.

Except that I'm not.

I ask our stakeholders to give...to our stakeholders. Everyone is sacrificing for everyone:

Our employees sacrifice for our investors, customers, and partners. They bust their asses day in and day out. Our engineers are working into the evenings regularly to deliver for our customers. Our marketing team is rapidly accelerating our public profile and our lead generation machine so that our engineers' code can make a dent in the world. Our sales team is creating value for customers. Our client success team is moving mountains to fulfill our promises. Everyone at Pristine is doing everything they can for our customers, investors and partners.

Our investors have gone out on a limb for our employees, and in turn, our customers and partners. And we put them to work: we work with them nearly daily to find and close candidates, customers, and partners. They know how hard it is to create a new market, and they are betting their time and precious capital on our ability to succeed. They are all in for everyone else.

Our customers are placing bets on us. They're betting that we aren't full of it. They're betting that we aren't a security liability. They're betting that we won't disrupt their mission critical business operations. They're betting that we don't piss away their capital into the massive abyss of failed startups. Executive sponsors within our customer organizations are risking their political capital with us to build our mutual vision. Our customers are sacrificing for our employees, investors, and in turn partners.

Our partners are betting on us too. They shouldn't waste their time on losers. We have to prove to them that we deliver value: relationships, revenue, growth, marketing, and more. They're offering their time and effort for our customers, investors, and employees. They expect that we reciprocate.

Many people love the energy and vibe of a startup. Although it's easy to attribute the startup mentality of boundless optimism to naivety about the challenges ahead, there is a deeper source of connection. We all know that we are sacrificing for one another. It fosters a deeper bond between all of us. We aren't here because we just need to feed ourselves; we're here because we believe in a shared mission.

We are all sacrificing for one another. That is the virtuous cycle of sacrifice in startups.

Tech Outregulates Regulators

I Just finished listening to a Freakonomics podcast episode, Regulate this!, that outlines the battle between local governments and peer-to-peer (P2P) services such as AirBnB], Uber, Lyft, and EatWith. Freakonomics interviews people on both sides, including cofounders of AirBnB, Lyft, and EatWith, as well as New York State Senator Liz Kruger.

Throughout the podcast, Kruger repeatedly highlights how P2P marketplaces aren’t regulating the users of their respective marketplaces, and thus consumers and bystanders could be adversely impacted without regulations and protections in place. She cites moving drug labs that operate via AirBnB; Lyft and Uber drivers that may not have insurance, and at-home chefs that may be intentionally or accidentally poisoning their guests.

The fundamental premise of Kruger’s argument is that consumers and bystanders must be protected, and that top-down government regulation is the best, and perhaps even only, way to protect consumers.

Her argument is by all means logical. She has hundreds of years of history backing her argument. Governments regulate industries to try to ensure fair outcomes for all stakeholders. But her argument also fails to account for a few of the most profound aspects of human behavior and sociology: the power of social norms and reputation and the power of creating transparency through technology.

These P2P-based businesses are by all accounts exceptional. They are each worth over $1B and are only a few years old. The market has proven that they solve real problems that millions of people face at spectacular scale. And like all businesses that operate at massive scale, there are a few bad apples left in their wake.

All successful P2P businesses are based on identity, reputation, and trust. Each of these services goes to extreme lengths to ensure a vibrant and healthy community:

eBay - after every transaction, buyers and sellers are asked to rate one another. Many sellers highlight their seller ratings in new and ongoing listings.

AirBnB - after every transaction, AirBnB offers discounts to guests to review their host. Hosts must review their guest before they can accept a new guest.

Uber / Lyft - Both services require that riders and drivers rate one another after each and every transaction. Neither party can partake in another transaction without rating the party from the prior transaction. Moreover, Uber and Lyft perform background checks on all drivers, require valid and updated vehicle inspections, and mandate a current insurance policy.

These businesses strongly encourage - and in some cases force - users to rate one another to build a trust-based community and marketplace. The reputation score tied to each party is based on the sum total of every single transaction each party has with the system.

On the other hand, when governments regulate businesses, they tend to review/approve businesses prior to opening, and on some periodic ongoing basis. In many cases, the business being regulated by the government knows approximately when the government may be coming by for a regulatory inspection.

In this light, it would appear that crowd-sourced regulation is actually stronger than government-mandated regulation. Crowd-sourced regulation is most certainly more granular, more frequent, and less prone to bias and corruption. Perhaps more interestingly, each of these crowd-sourced services also tends to offer better service than their respective traditional retail analogs:

Uber and Lyft drivers are known to be quite friendly and enthusiastic. Many offer complimentary water. Uber and Lyft both go to great lengths to build a community among their drivers and to ensure that drivers provide a great customer experience.

AirBnB hosts are generally warm and welcoming people and offer stellar traveler experience. I’ve used AirBnB four or five times. All of my hosts offered home-cooked breakfasts and bars for the road at fraction the cost of nearby hotels. This is perhaps largely due to self- selection of hosts, but is no less relevant. Hosts are thankful for the opportunity to earn money when they otherwise would not, and want to work hard to earn guests’ business in a competitive AirBnB marketplace.

These P2P marketplaces ensure and promote high-quality for every transaction by promoting accountability during every transaction. The government will never be able to regulate these services at this level of granularity because governmental approaches to regulation are intrinsically top-down as opposed to bottom-up.

Everyone, for all of our sakes, regulate one another!

CEO = Chief Worry Officer

I'm a first time founder. I've been fortunate enough to build a company supported by an ambitious, talented team. Together, our team has built a great product, proven its value with customers, and raised $5.4M in Series A financing off the back of our early success. For the first time in my life, I'm responsible for millions of dollars of other people's capital, and as such, I now report to a board. I'm a founder, and I can be fired. I'm learning a lot as I go.

I was recently talking with a friend (who I'll call Barry for the rest of this post) who's raised over $100M in VC financing. We've talked quite a bit about startup boards, and specifically, the board's expectations of CEO performance (not just my board, but all boards). It's pretty easy to overthink these issues. Barry provided a simple framework to think about my role as CEO: the board has hired me as Chief Worry Officer.

As Chief Worry Officer, my job is to worry about the business. I find that it helps to pretend the board hired me as an outside consultant to come in and "worry" about things. I have to demonstrate a realistic understanding of where we are as a business, highlight strengths and weaknesses, identify the problems we're facing, and outline how we're trying to solve them. The worst thing a CEO can do is understate and underestimate problems. As Chief Worry Officer, I must find, vocalize, and solve these problems.

I would love to provide an anecdote to substantiate the above, but we haven't been holding board meetings long enough for me to discuss board issues publicly. Although the framework is new, I love it. It forces me to worry about just a few issues, and to delegate everything else as part of the leveling up process. Today, I have 4 key issues that I'm worried about. I've written those 4 key items down in my task manager that stays open on the right hand side of my computer at all times. As chief worry officer, I've structured my thinking, meetings, and processes around solving the key issues the board has hired me to worry about.

I recommend this framework to all new VC-backed founders. Founders, worry. It's good for you :).