Google Glass doesn't do enough, is hard to interact with, and will not succeed unless Google enhances it for enterprise use, according to Aaron Levie, CEO and co-founder at cloud storage and collaboration firm Box.
Speaking exclusively to Computing at the firm's annual customer and partner event BoxWorks, held in San Francisco recently, Levie also jokingly described the gadget as the 'go pro' for nerds.
Further reading Google buys into chipmaker behind Google Glass display technology Google Glass should be banned, say fifth of Britons and Americans Boxing clever: The technology strategy behind Box's growth
"Google Glass is not yet at the level of human computer interaction that will make it a very successful product. The way you communicate to it still needs a lot of work. I used it for a few days and tried to give it a good shot but it just doesn't have enough utility," he said.
He contrasted it to Apple's iPad and iPhone, which made people quickly feel "unable to imagine there'd ever been a world without them". He added that his test is "can you live without it after a week of using it?" In the case of Glass, Levie found that he could.
He explained that there aren't enough augmented reality apps available today to make the device worthwhile.
"There's not a lot of augmented reality today, there's not enough line of sight apps available to it. It doesn't leverage enough that's happening in the real world, that's the only reason to want it above your eyeball, otherwise you'd just use your phone."
But Levie argued that it is important that Google is at least attempting to innovate.
"Some companies forget to innovate. You have to push the limits. But sometimes when you do that, you find that maybe there was a reason why there was a limit.
"But with self-driving cars the exact opposite is happening. We have computers, satellites, GPS, robotics - so why can't you have a car that drives itself? That limit didn't need to exist. You win some you lose some in the world of innovation."
Levie went on to suggest that self-driving cars will be more transformative in the next 10 years than Google Glass.
Having predicted that the device will not be a success, Levie explained that there are enterprise use cases that could yet rescue it.
"The best use cases are industrial or enterprise. As much as I make jokes, there are relevant use cases for Box, but it'll depend on whether Google pivots the product into that area. If they decide it's an enterprise product, then I can think of lots of use cases right now - medical, automotive, manufacturing, where hands-free computing is important.
"But coming from a company like Google, they might not be motivated to see it through on the enterprise side. You need a start-up to make something like Glass, where their survival is dependent on the traction of that product."
