top of page

The Vicious Cycle of Smart Glass 1.0

 

A vicious cycle, by definition, is one where repeated actions lead to increasingly negative outcomes. The more you do something, the worse things get. The struggles of Smart Glass 1.0 perfectly illustrate this, driven by three core challenges: misalignment between technology, product, and strategy; exorbitant manufacturing costs; and a poor product-market fit.


Vicious Circle

These root issues bore bitter fruit, creating pain and frustration for customers, employees and partners alike. While the list of downstream challenges is extensive, three stand out as the primary contributors to this vicious cycle:

 

  • Reliability Issues: Frequent warranty claims and high failure rates of installed products.

  • Supply Chain Problems: Costly delays that impacted project budgets and timelines.

  • Misleading Marketing and Aggressive Sales Tactics: Practices that eroded trust, damaged reputations, and made future sales more challenging.

 

These challenges incrementally diminished the potential for widespread adoption each time they occurred.

 

 

Reliability & Warranty Challenges

 

Chronic warranty claims can spell the end for any business, and Smart Glass 1.0 was no exception. As I discussed in a previous post on product risk, the costs and disruptions associated with replacing glass in buildings are substantial. Unfortunately, nearly every supplier and project in the Smart Glass 1.0 era faced reliability issues.

 

A stark example of this was View, Inc.'s announcement, post-SPAC merger, of an undisclosed warranty liability of $48 million and $53 million for completed projects. The sheer size of this liability, especially relative to their then-small installation base, was alarming. The ratio of warranty liability to sales was shockingly high.

 

But View wasn’t alone. At HALIO, every project experienced some form of performance issue. The dynamic reached a point where it felt akin to a struggling multi-level marketing scheme. The most recently completed project was the only one you could confidently reference for potential clients, as older projects were mired in issues.

 

Selling new projects became increasingly difficult when warranty problems plagued existing ones.

 

Supply Chain Delays

 

In the glazing industry, the expectation is clear: glass should be delivered "complete and on time." This is crucial because interior work on a building can’t begin until it’s enclosed. Delays at this stage create significant issues for general contractors, risking the overall project timeline.

 

For glaziers, dealing with an unreliable glass supplier is a nightmare. It strains relationships and erodes trust. When the next job goes out to bid, these glaziers are vocal about their experiences, ensuring that others know about the delays caused by smart glass suppliers.

 

Given the complexities of manufacturing smart glass, coupled with erratic demand and immature manufacturing processes, delivering on time was a persistent issue that only compounded the difficulties in selling smart glass.

 
Exaggerated Marketing and Aggressive Sales Tactics

 

Sales expert Todd Caponi, author of The Transparency Sale and The Transparent Sales Leader, teaches that every step in the sales process either builds or erodes trust. Trust leads to sales and referrals; a lack of trust does the opposite. This principle is just as relevant in marketing, where claims set customer expectations.

 

The price-value mismatch in smart glass put immense pressure on marketing teams to justify the cost. This led to overpromises—exaggerated claims of occupant productivity gains, inflated energy savings, and unproven financial benefits like faster lease-ups or above-market lease rates. When smart glass failed to deliver on these promises, trust was eroded.

 

Solutions with low product-market have a small market and therefore limited opportunities to make sales. When the companies competing for those limited opportunities are also fighting for their survival, the sales process becomes brutally competitive. This win-at-all-costs approach damaged relationships and left buyers with less trust in the companies than before.

 

Wrapping It Up

 

Despite the challenges faced by Smart Glass 1.0, one thing is clear: many people were (and still are) deeply passionate about bringing this technology to market, believing in its potential to make a positive impact. Their passion helped raise a lot of money, mobilized talent, and took considerable risks to realize their vision. I have immense respect for that.

 

However, the misalignment of technology, product, and underlying manufacturing processes prevented this first attempt from succeeding. Yet failure is a fertile ground for learning and growth. The glass market is full of resilient individuals who love what they do and are committed to the industry’s success. Already, I’m seeing signs that the next generation of smart glass companies is learning from past mistakes and designing better solutions and business models in response.

 

What’s Next: Hope for the Future in Smart Glass 2.0

 

In the next installment, I’ll be joined by guest co-author Andy McNeil to evaluate the emerging wave of companies and technologies that are working to deliver on the promise of Smart Glass 2.0.




About the Author:

NEXT Jonathan Hafemann

Jonathan Hafemann is the Vice President Growth and Commercialization at NEXT Energy Technologies. He is an expert at developing scalable go-to-market strategies for early-stage property and climate technology solutions. His focus on sustainable solutions for the built market accelerates the transition to a net zero future. Follow Jonathan on LinkedIn


Comments


bottom of page