Google Glass 1.0 (the first version available to consumers) was a failure in terms of social acceptance and commercial appeal. Yes, there are more than 70 articles in PubMed about Google Glass as of December 2015 but the device never got traction and most of publicity around it was decidedly negative. The second version aims to change that. Here is more information about Google Glass 2.0 from the WSJ:
Here is something not to try:
Texting while driving using Google Glass™: Promising but not distraction-free.
He J, Choi W, McCarley JS, Chaparro BS, Wang C.
Accid Anal Prev. 2015 Aug;81:218-29. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.033. Epub 2015 May 26.
And of course, there is this:
Google Glass liability risks.
Bull Am Coll Surg. 2015 Feb;100(2):39. No abstract available.
There are potential benefits, of course:
Do you see what I see? Insights from using google glass for disaster telemedicine triage.
Cicero MX, Walsh B, Solad Y, Whitfill T, Paesano G, Kim K, Baum CR, Cone DC.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015 Feb;30(1):4-8. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X1400140X. Epub 2015 Jan 9.
Whatever the future application of Google Glass is, there will always be allergies:
GlassAllergy: a Google Glass-based solution to empower patients with skin allergies.
Wiesner M, Pobiruchin M, Hetterich C, Pfeifer D.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:548-52.
If you think people did not like to wear the digital glasses, how about a digital wig?
New Wearable Computers Move Ahead: Google Glass and Smart Wigs.
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Jan 1;8(1):3-5. [Epub ahead of print] No abstract available.
The question is still open:
Google Glass: a new dimension in surgical education or just another gimmick?
ANZ J Surg. 2014 Nov;84(11):810. Review. No abstract available.
PubMed search on Google Glass