'iPod Father' Tony Fadell to Take Charge of Google Glass

[Sill]

Yes.

My Nest paid for it self in the first 6 months in savings in energy costs. I never have to touch the heat, its fully automatic. The schedule handles all basic task for up/down and the GPS based automatic part handles setting away mode anytime I leave the house.
We love ours. Paid for itself in first 6 months. All is automatic

You saved enough using Nest to cover the $249 purchase price in just six months? How? The only thing I can think of is that you either stayed away from the house just to show friends how the thing shuts off the HVAC when you weren't home, or else when you were home you didn't do anything - you simply sat there staring at it. I could see $10-15/ month in savings, but $41.50/month? There had to be something else going on there. Like maybe, your old thermostat was possessed.

Perhaps it makes sense up north, where you have HVAC concepts biased towards heat.
Down south the Nest makes less sense. We rarely use the heat in our home. In the winter we throw a space heater in the bathroom since thats used mostly when we first get up and then again when we get home after work. In the summer, the AC stays on all day and all night. My AC system is purposely designed slightly undersize to ensure this. It keeps the air drier and mold doesn't happen. Otherwise one runs the risk of having aspergillus blooming indoors. There is no way to make use of a Nest or any other programmable thermostat for the express purpose of having the system run less. That leaves the only use for Nest is as a data-mining device for Google.

 

[Sill]

CES this year was full of AR glasses with stereo vision. Suddenly the field is crowded and a shakedown is coming.

CES, about 23 years ago, was crowded with people lined up at the Virtual Vision pavilion to try their "wearable big screen TV". It worked, and pretty well from what I understand (I couldn't try it because I didn't have the patience to wait about 4 hours standing in line to try it - I felt it was better to spend those hours interviewing the people at Papyrus Software and Presto Studios).

Virtual Vision worked, there was tremendous interest, and no one bought it.

I'm not saying there is no need for, or desire for, a wearable HUD like GG. Its going to take a fairly substantial public need for it to happen on a large scale. I simply can't think of a case for it.

The iPod succeeded because people had been fighting with poor capacity music storage and playback since the beginning of the music industry. Each upgrade in technology didn't have to fight a very steep slope to gain acceptance. Drum recordings beat out sheet music for very obvious reasons, likewise for vinyl or acetate platters. Cassettes were a landmark in music storage, and CDs were a huge jump from that. Once we got to digital, the things to beat were storage capacity, encoding for (adequate) fidelity, and the user interface/form factor. Capacity went up as storage costs went down, fidelity went up as the compression algorithms improved (and compression really means very little now since storage is so cheap - when was the last time I used a lossy compression format? About four years ago.) The only thing that hadn't been hit was the form factor and UI. Apple famously took care of that, and the rest of the market could only run after them like a gimpy senior chasing the last bus.

So, the reason for the history exposition is to put a perspective on this. Being hip or cool isn't a need, its a desire. Despite Apple's iPod and iPhone marketing producing a ground swell for the hipsters, the underlying need for an excellent phone and excellent music player still exists. What public need does Glass serve? Absolutely none.

It is true that vertical markets who have targeted needs to keep hands-free while accessing data will be an excellent place for this thing to shine. However, as one other poster pointed out, in these vertical markets they will want to keep their data in their possession, and not have to push their data out to an external company/server just to have it pushed back to them.

Of course, we are in the middle of a culture that thinks nothing about putting their entire lives up for view online, and that may just bleed into the business world. I see the start of it, with the insane push for cloud everything.

 

[satcomer]

To get on target he will have to get on some wide spread notions! That Google will add advertisers to Glass they even made a video.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Never said it was designed to fail. And I've read plenty. Have a great weekend

Okay, designed to not succeed. A difference without a distinction. You apparently haven't read enough.

----------

I don't think the product is dead, though I do think it will need to transform some how, in function and price. I also think the public needs to find a good balancing act of what's acceptable and what isn't

The biggest social issue with Glass is the camera. It is also the least technically interesting part of the product, and the one with the least obvious utility (at least for the general market), and the most easily replaceable with a freestanding product. Apparently Google hasn't figured out that vast majority of the creep factor is in the camera. This seems to be where the Geeks with Cash factor takes over Google's thinking. They think it's cool, so everybody else should too.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Google Glass is yet another example of "tech overshoot", products created where no market (or demand) exists. Even without the creep factor this was doomed. Google Glass, meet the 3D TV.....

 

[carmenodie]

Glass has a huge market amongst pervs and hipsters.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[kdarling]

To get on target he will have to get on some wide spread notions! That Google will add advertisers to Glass they even made a video

Of course, that was a joke video, and was not made by Google.

Ironically, in real life we hear more about ads being pushed at Apple device owners as they walk around. This is mostly because of iBeacon.

--

Re: the supposed "creepiness" of Glass. A lot of that was ignorance and some was FUD.

It's actually pretty easy to tell if a user is triggering a photo shot. And recordings only last about ten seconds by default.

I'd be more worried about someone pretending to be looking at their smartphone and secretly recording me. Which is to say, not much worry at all in either case.

 

[Sill]

Ironically, in real life we hear more about ads being pushed at Apple device owners as they walk around. This is mostly because of iBeacon.

I have yet to see any iBeacon ads show up on my iPhone.

That video seems to demonstrate how people are looking for a reason to have technology, instead of seeing technology fill a need. If I have a shopping list, I don't enter it on a phone. It goes in my wallet or pocket. I don't need a watch to tap me on the wrist to remind me to go shopping when I walk past my favorite store. The fact that I'm near the store doesn't come as some kind of surprise to me, because generally I have a pretty good idea of my surroundings. When I walk in the store I pull the little piece of paper out, walk through and pick out my items. When I'm done, I toss the paper out.

Strangely, all of this is accomplished without close to $1k in technology being necessary. Although I enjoy my iPhone, I can't really see a need for it past email, text, and web browsing, the basic functions that it started with. Likewise, I can't really see a need for Glass. At least, not in the capacity that Google wants.

 

[Rogifan]

Of course, that was a joke video, and was not made by Google.

Ironically, in real life we hear more about ads being pushed at Apple device owners as they walk around. This is mostly because of iBeacon.

YouTube: video

Really who are all these people? I've never had any ads pushed to my iPhone. And as far as I know iBeacon is opt-in so if you don't have a specific app downloaded and you didn't opt-in you're not going to see ads show up on your phone.

 

[ipedro]

Neither is a strategic mistake for Apple. Why? 1) Apple isn't in the thermostat business. 2) they could have hired Fadell had they wanted him.

Pretty simple.

The Nest isn't just a thermostat. It's clear that it's becoming a hub for the home and the smart home is set to become a billion dollar business.

Having a screen on your wall with a simple iPod like dial and user interface fits with Apple's goal to dominate the smart home with HomeKit. Now Google has a bought itself a place on my wall — and I'm as Apple-loyal as they come.

----------

Good engineers/managers leave Apple from time to time, it's not the end of the world. Google has not done much with Nest anyway and Apple has HomeKit partners like Honeywell in the thermostat business so Apple does not need to make thermostats. You can only do so much with a thermostat or smoke detector anyway.

You haven't been watching the Nest space. The Works With Nest program has quietly been building Nest into a central hub for the smart home. Dozens of smart devices are now connected to Nest.

Nest is just one software update away from being the central command for your home. Strategically, that's a threat to Apple's plans for HomeKit.

 

[BOOGER1]

You saved enough using Nest to cover the $249 purchase price in just six months? How? The only thing I can think of is that you either stayed away from the house just to show friends how the thing shuts off the HVAC when you weren't home, or else when you were home you didn't do anything - you simply sat there staring at it. I could see $10-15/ month in savings, but $41.50/month? There had to be something else going on there. Like maybe, your old thermostat was possessed.

Perhaps it makes sense up north, where you have HVAC concepts biased towards heat.
Down south the Nest makes less sense. We rarely use the heat in our home. In the winter we throw a space heater in the bathroom since thats used mostly when we first get up and then again when we get home after work. In the summer, the AC stays on all day and all night. My AC system is purposely designed slightly undersize to ensure this. It keeps the air drier and mold doesn't happen. Otherwise one runs the risk of having aspergillus blooming indoors. There is no way to make use of a Nest or any other programmable thermostat for the express purpose of having the system run less. That leaves the only use for Nest is as a data-mining device for Google.

I am in the south and my NEST has saved me a ton. Love them.

 

[kdarling]

Really who are all these people? I've never had any ads pushed to my iPhone. And as far as I know iBeacon is opt-in so if you don't have a specific app downloaded and you didn't opt-in you're not going to see ads show up on your phone.

Eh? I didn't say people were getting such ads.

I said that we hear more about the idea of ads hitting us as we walk around, from companies working with iBeacons.

Oh, I think I see now. What I said could've been read with a different meaning. Mea culpa!

 

[technosix]

Google Glass was brilliant. It served it's purpose and I'm sure Google learned a lot. Now they're moving on.

I admire that about Google, they're fearless, take risks and move the tech sector forward when others are sitting back afraid to alienate customers.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Re: the supposed "creepiness" of Glass. A lot of that was ignorance and some was FUD.

It's actually pretty easy to tell if a user is triggering a photo shot. And recordings only last about ten seconds by default.

I'd be more worried about someone pretending to be looking at their smartphone and secretly recording me. Which is to say, not much worry at all in either case.

FUD means fear, uncertainty and doubt. I don't see how the concept applies here. As for ignorance, if the public doesn't understand a product then it is incumbent on the manufacturer to explain it better. Either Google didn't know how or was disinclined to explain why someone would want to wear a camera on their face. Apple will have a similar problem with the Apple Watch. They will have to make a case for why anyone would want to integrate technology with their bodies. Apple has already started making the case for intimate technology, which tells me that they at least understand the importance of selling this as a basic concept. If Apple is unable to explain why this is a positive development then they deserve to fail too -- and just as with Google, it will be their fault, not the public for not getting it on their own.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Strangely, all of this is accomplished without close to $1k in technology being necessary. Although I enjoy my iPhone, I can't really see a need for it past email, text, and web browsing, the basic functions that it started with. Likewise, I can't really see a need for Glass. At least, not in the capacity that Google wants.

I'm betting you didn't see much need for an iPhone before you saw one, but once you did, you knew how it could serve your needs. The problem with Glass was demonstrating what need it filled. It was a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Rogifan]

Eh? I didn't say people were getting such ads.

I said that we hear more about the idea of ads hitting us as we walk around, from companies working with iBeacons.

Oh, I think I see now. What I said could've been read with a different meaning. Mea culpa!

Ah, gotcha. I just get annoyed that so many think Apple will allow Watch to become a magnet for spam. There is zero evidence that will be case. Anything with Watch and iBeacons will be opt-in.

 

[Sill]

I'm betting you didn't see much need for an iPhone before you saw one, but once you did, you knew how it could serve your needs. The problem with Glass was demonstrating what need it filled. It was a solution in search of a problem.

Do you mean before I saw one in person, before I bought it, before I saw the iPhone keynote, or... ?

I had no idea what a phone could be before I saw it. At the time I was suffering with a standard cell phone. Non-random access voice mail, lousy text, poor phone call performance. I couldn't imagine using a phone as a web browser, not with a 1.5x1.5 screen. I knew at the time I needed something better, but I had no idea of what was possible.

When I saw the keynote, I was speechless over how effectively Apple had translated the hamstrung cellphone into a pure information appliance.

When I bought my first, a 3G, I was really happy with it since it did phone calls, text, and light browsing very well. Subsequent iterations have done nothing but improve on it. Apps, I really don't need. I have very few installed. I try some free ones out now and then but thats it. I can't even fill two screens on a plain i5.

I am on the fence about the Watch. I see a great looking watch, but since I never use location services for any reason, half of the functions mean nothing to me. I'm also never going to use it for tracking fitness, because frankly, some of what they consider fitness metrics are laughable. I know the rest of the country is addicted to what they think is "cardio", but it has no place in my fitness goals. And I'm not thrilled about having a sensor measure heartbeat. Next, they'll introduce bone density scanning as an added "security layer". I'm sure. If you don't see where that is going, its useless for me to explain it.

Back to Glass... I'm sure it works, I'm sure its neat, but as we've both said, its technology in search of a reason.

----------

I am in the south and my NEST has saved me a ton. Love them.

Well, that settles that.

 

[samcraig]

Do you mean before I saw one in person, before I bought it, before I saw the iPhone keynote, or... ?

I had no idea what a phone could be before I saw it. At the time I was suffering with a standard cell phone. Non-random access voice mail, lousy text, poor phone call performance. .

I do not know what phone you had. Or what network. But the comment about poor phone call performance made me chuckle. I thought for the first few iterations that call performance and signal strength (actual, not visualized) was the poorest on the iPhone vs every other phone I've ever owned. both before the iPhone and concurrently.

 

[maflynn]

Google Glass is yet another example of "tech overshoot", products created where no market (or demand) exists. Even without the creep factor this was doomed. Google Glass, meet the 3D TV.....

I think people were saying the same thing about the iPhone and iPad. Look what happened there.

If a company doesn't try to overshoot technology, we'll not be where we are today. Sure there will be failures, but you can't let failures stop you from innovating.

 

[kdarling]

Ah, gotcha. I just get annoyed that so many think Apple will allow Watch to become a magnet for spam. There is zero evidence that will be case. Anything with Watch and iBeacons will be opt-in.

Yep, I agree.

I'm betting you didn't see much need for an iPhone before you saw one, but once you did, you knew how it could serve your needs. The problem with Glass was demonstrating what need it filled. It was a solution in search of a problem.

Actually Google defined the problem in that TED talk someone posted. They were trying to figure out a way to:

1) Provide information when you need it, without having to search for it.

E.g. when you have an appointment in the city at noon, then it should point out where the nearest subway entrance is, indicate which train to take, and then when you come out, highlight the rest of the way to the building. Perhaps even highlight the floor and office you're going to. All automatically.

2) Give this kind of information display in a hands-free, heads-up mode... instead of having to keep their head down looking at a phone in their hand.

--

Now, in the future it could be possible to do this in a way that doesn't require wearing a glass frame. Contact lenses, direct brain stimulation, who knows. But that doesn't mean they can't experiment now, in order to get the information part figured out.

Interestingly, a smartwatch sometimes gives the hands-free part. Kind of. (If you were holding groceries, then no.) But not the heads-up part, unless you're willing to keep your hand held to your face.

Baby steps. But necessary ones.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Do you mean before I saw one in person, before I bought it, before I saw the iPhone keynote, or... ?

I had no idea what a phone could be before I saw it. At the time I was suffering with a standard cell phone. Non-random access voice mail, lousy text, poor phone call performance. I couldn't imagine using a phone as a web browser, not with a 1.5x1.5 screen. I knew at the time I needed something better, but I had no idea of what was possible.

When I saw the keynote, I was speechless over how effectively Apple had translated the hamstrung cellphone into a pure information appliance.

When I bought my first, a 3G, I was really happy with it since it did phone calls, text, and light browsing very well. Subsequent iterations have done nothing but improve on it. Apps, I really don't need. I have very few installed. I try some free ones out now and then but thats it. I can't even fill two screens on a plain i5.

I am on the fence about the Watch. I see a great looking watch, but since I never use location services for any reason, half of the functions mean nothing to me. I'm also never going to use it for tracking fitness, because frankly, some of what they consider fitness metrics are laughable. I know the rest of the country is addicted to what they think is "cardio", but it has no place in my fitness goals. And I'm not thrilled about having a sensor measure heartbeat. Next, they'll introduce bone density scanning as an added "security layer". I'm sure. If you don't see where that is going, its useless for me to explain it.

Back to Glass... I'm sure it works, I'm sure its neat, but as we've both said, its technology in search of a reason.

By whatever means you discovered the iPhone, once you did, it was apparent to you (and many millions of others) that it solved an actual problem. But the real key to its success is the problem it solved was one that many, if not most people, didn't even know they had. As for Apple Watch, this will be another explaining effort on Apple's part and the product will rise or fall on how its usefulness is perceived, just as it should. Where it is going, we really don't know. Nobody really knew where the iPhone was going when it was released. It didn't even run apps. So good luck guessing the direction of Apple Watch. I don't mind guessing and I'm doing some of that myself. But any guess I make I'd at least try to justify.

 

[samcraig]

By whatever means you discovered the iPhone, once you did, it was apparent to you (and many millions of others) that it solved an actual problem. But the real key to its success is the problem it solved was one that many, if not most people, didn't even know they had. As for Apple Watch, this will be another explaining effort on Apple's part and the product will rise or fall on how its usefulness is perceived, just as it should. Where it is going, we really don't know. Nobody really knew where the iPhone was going when it was released. It didn't even run apps. So good luck guessing the direction of Apple Watch. I don't mind guessing and I'm doing some of that myself. But any guess I make I'd at least try to justify.

A lot of guessing. Your post is honestly riddled with pure opinion and no facts. Which is ok. But to suggest that most, or nobody knew x or y is simply that - your opinion. And one I don't agree with. That might have been your response to the original iPhone.

And the original iPhone took awhile to take off. It wasn't an overnight success. Because while slick and fun to use - it didn't ACTUALLY solve many problems out of the gate other than it was a fun experience. As far as productivity - it was still sorely lacking compared to other devices.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Actually Google defined the problem in that TED talk someone posted. They were trying to figure out a way to:

1) Provide information when you need it, without having to search for it.

E.g. when you have an appointment in the city at noon, then it should point out where the nearest subway entrance is, indicate which train to take, and then when you come out, highlight the rest of the way to the building. Perhaps even highlight the floor and office you're going to. All automatically.

2) Give this kind of information display in a hands-free, heads-up mode... instead of having to keep their head down looking at a phone in their hand.

--

Now, in the future it could be possible to do this in a way that doesn't require wearing a glass frame. Contact lenses, direct brain stimulation, who knows. But that doesn't mean they can't experiment now, in order to get the information part figured out.

Interestingly, a smartwatch sometimes gives the hands-free part. Kind of. (If you were holding groceries, then no.) But not the heads-up part, unless you're willing to keep your hand held to your face.

Baby steps. But necessary ones.

No doubt they defined the problem internally, but the ultimate question for any product is whether it addresses a problem people actually have. Geeks working in labs can invent all manner of solutions to problems, and they can also ignore the social interaction consequences of what they invent. But the people who are tasked with marketing those products to the public must move beyond. They have to make distinctions between products that do or don't appeal to people outside of labs, which ones will be both useful and socially acceptable. This is where Google fell flat on its face with Glass. It's the same old story in all of science: solutions are easy, problems are hard.

Some are intent on calling Glass just an experiment. It was actually a product. If they'd stuck by the "explorer" program and only made it available in a somewhat gloried beta program, and if they'd kept the entire thing low-key, I might even agree. But the reality is they trotted Glass around the country to expos and media events, they sky-dived them into the Moscone Center, they partnered with fashion frame makers, they opened them up to general retail sales. If after all this promotion they'd seen a growing acceptance of the product, you can bet your bippy they'd still be manufacturing and selling them. Since Google can easily afford to subsidize commercial losers I think we can surmise how little success they were seeing with Glass and not for lack of wanting it.

----------

A lot of guessing. Your post is honestly riddled with pure opinion and no facts. Which is ok. But to suggest that most, or nobody knew x or y is simply that - your opinion. And one I don't agree with. That might have been your response to the original iPhone.

And the original iPhone took awhile to take off. It wasn't an overnight success. Because while slick and fun to use - it didn't ACTUALLY solve many problems out of the gate other than it was a fun experience. As far as productivity - it was still sorely lacking compared to other devices.

This is so completely wrong it's hard to know where to start, so I will start and end with your erroneous description of the initial success of the iPhone. This is where the phenomenon of people camping out on sidewalks for days began, so it is the working definition of an "overnight success." Not that "overnight success" is a useful description of anything, really, because we are talking about Glass here. It had years to become an "overnight success" but instead was withdrawn from the market.

 

[samcraig]

This is so completely wrong it's hard to know where to start, so I will start and end with your erroneous description of the initial success of the iPhone. This is where the phenomenon of people camping out on sidewalks for days began, so it is the working definition of an "overnight success." Not that "overnight success" is a useful description of anything, really, because we are talking about Glass here. It had years to become an "overnight success" but instead was withdrawn from the market.

Oh jeez. Hundreds not thousands of people lined up. And by days - I think you mean MAYBE 1 day ahead for the first iPhone. But the real discussion should be about the #s, right? Take a look. http://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/

Not a failure AT ALL. But not at all millions at launch either. Like I said - that took time.

You like to make up your own definitions though to suit your argument (at least that's how you come off to me). Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Oh jeez. Hundreds not thousands of people lined up. And by days - I think you mean MAYBE 1 day ahead for the first iPhone. But the real discussion should be about the #s, right? Take a look. http://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/

Not a failure AT ALL. But not at all millions at launch either. Like I said - that took time.

You like to make up your own definitions though to suit your argument (at least that's how you come off to me). Let's just agree to disagree.

Oh jeez, they sold something like 300,000 in the first weekend, and over five million in the first year, and that's even before it ran apps. Of course I never said it sold millions at launch, or stated a number of campers, so you just made that up for your convenience. Short memory all around. Not accurate, not responsive to what I actually said.

Anyway, you are now officially making no sense at all.