Description
I have to reply to 2 peer's post. Please find the attachment of both peers reply. Please compose reply for both posts in the attached documents.
Each response should be minimum of 150 words excluding reference. Also, Cite at least one reference for each peer reply.
Requirement
Forums Guidelines Criteria | Requirements |
Quality Guidelines (50%): |
|
Participation Guidelines (30%): |
|
Clarity, Organization & Professionalism Guidelines (20%): |
|
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Peer Response – 1
In general, there seems to be one major problem that led to the state of Google Glass
as it is today. When Google Glass was originally released, everyone from the engineers
to the consumers knew that the product was still in beta testing; "the current prototype
was just that: a prototype, with major kinks to be worked out" (Bilton, 2015). That is to
say, the released product had a long way to go production-wise and monetarily for it to
be successful in the long run. Regardless of this widely known fact, it was determined to
release a beta test of the product to get feedback from the customer and society as a
whole to hone in on the areas that needed the most work. What is most interesting
about this method of beta testing that Google conducted is that the company "decided
not to sell the first version in retail stores, but instead limit it to Glass Explorers, a select
group of geeks and journalists who paid $1,500 for the privilege of being an early
adopter" (Bilton, 2015). The exclusivity of the product led to more interest and
excitement about the product, but unfortunately, the product had too many kinks to work
out, and it did not result in favorable reviews. The negative reviews in combination with
the huge spotlight led to the demise of Google Glass before it could even get off the
ground.
Some aspects of Google Glass that needed improved upon was the technology that the
product was formed upon, the fashion statement that the product made, the limited
functionality of the product, and the overall cost was too h...