#60: People Don’t Want to Wear Technology

AI will have a much easier time disrupting software than hardware

Over the weekend, I walked into the Chambers Street ACE subway stop in Manhattan and saw an advertisement for Friend. What appears to be a glorified dog tag necklace is actually sophisticated AI. It eavesdrops on your conversations and provides commentary via text. In theory, it’s supposed to act as your friend, something you can chat back and forth with throughout your day.

I read a Wired OpEd about a writer’s experience with their Friend necklace, and I couldn’t help but think I was reading the transcript of a Black Mirror episode. Not only does this AI “friend” emit a dystopian vibe, but it also provides questionable utility as not all its responses (via text) are appropriate or helpful.

And it lacks any reasonable aesthetic. Simply put, the Friend AI necklace is ugly.

I believe we take for granted how hard it is to make aesthetic-looking hardware. Apple’s suite of products from the iPhone to AirPods are sleek and aesthetic. They have a knack for branding and product design.

But what’s even tougher than designing hardware is designing hardware meant to be worn.

Wearable technology has come a long way. Remember Google Glass that came out in 2014? The product was discontinued within a year. Apparently, people don’t want to wear something that makes them look like a cyborg. Then there’s Meta’s Oculus headset which debuted in 2019 (quickly rebranded to the Meta Quest). Although novel technology, your entire face was covered with what looked like snorkeling goggles during use. Most recently, the Apple Vision Pro was released which certainly is the most aesthetic of the three. But even with that said, its steep price point of $3,500, lack of utility for most real-world scenarios, and a still-questionable aesthetic have kept it from mainstream adoption.

At the end of the day, people are not going to wear something that makes them feel insecure about how they look. I believe Google, Meta, and Apple failed to recognize how tricky it is to get someone to wear something on their face.

The global beauty industry has a market size of $450B, according to McKinsey. People spend big money to make their faces look “better”. If people routinely buy beauty products to enhance their appearance, it’s very unlikely that they will put on glasses or goggles that have a technical utility if it makes them look worse. That comparison matters, because wearables compete not just with tech expectations, but with how people perceive themselves socially.

With that said, there are a few companies that have broken through the stigma around wearable technology. Whoop, Oura, and Apple have all introduced health & wellness wearables in the way of the Whoop wristband, Oura ring, and Apple Watch.

I believe these products have had both cultural (critical) and commercial success for a few reasons. Primarily, the product design is meant to mimic an already socially acceptable fashion accessory. People all over the world wear wristbands, rings, and watches and none of these companies had to prove people want to wear something on their wrist or fingers. Next, each product really took off on the back of the Wellness movement, particularly in the US. Coming out of the pandemic, an emphasis on health habits led to more interest in learning about one’s body performance becoming mainstream. The value proposition of each fitness wearable was clear. Tie that into the products actually work (validated by professional athlete use, like LeBron James or Steph Curry), and it’s not the biggest surprise that people began considering wearing a piece of technology. Lastly, none of the devices are social taboo. They’re not recording any conversations around us, only tracking the user’s data (no one else’s).

Fitness wearables came into vogue partially because they were launched at the right time (on the back of the Wellness movement) and have become quite popular with younger generations (millennials, Gen Z). But they couldn’t have reached a critical mass without being aesthetically pleasing and slotting into an already socially acceptable accessory. Especially one that doesn’t lie on your face.

So, who is going to crack the code and introduce the first culturally and commercially accepted wearable technology on our faces? A use case beyond health and wellness.

Surprisingly, it could be Meta, a company better known for software. Meta’s Ray-Ban partnership is one to take note of and their Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses may be the first proof point of wearable face technology.

Meta’s Ray-Ban partnership shows they understand the social dynamics of wearing something on your face. Ray-Ban glasses are seen as a premium aesthetic and already see widespread adoption in the market. As a company whose revenue is 95% driven by social media advertising, it’s smart they looked externally to help build out their wearable division. Add Meta’s software to Ray-Bans and maybe, just maybe, it could work.

Tech glasses have long received criticism (targeted towards all makers) for not adjusting the display quickly enough to one’s movements. Now, Meta added an EMG wristband, called the Meta Neural Band that picks up signals emitted by muscles and translates them into software commands. Through subtle hand cues, the EMG wristband will detect that you want to take a picture or view your messages and then bring you to that function. Ultimately, the necessary guidance to the EMG wristband must be subtle, otherwise it’ll make people wearing the glasses stick out like a sore thumb.

Who else could make a big play in the wearables race? My guess is all the major players. And some new ones. OpenAI acquihired former Apple Chief Design Office Jony Ive to work on a suite of hardware products that are expected to launch within the next few years. It’s likely that Google and Apple will keep iterating on this too.

Building wearable technology? If it makes people look worse, it won’t work.