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

[ahhh]

Something that people actully want

http://www.skullysystems.com/#smartest-helmet

Im racking my brain to think of a time when I'd want google glass on and just can't think of anything.

 

[alestian]

Well this was an Epic Failure

This was a product that had potential, had a great idea, and then plummeted to the bottom. Way too expensive for normal consumers. The product was far from perfect. It basically turned out to be an epic failure.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

People used to say the same thing about cell phones and (later) bluetooth headset back in the day.

oh yes remember those days, especially since i lived in the heart of the city of London financial district as a student! Bluetooth headsets were synonymous with douches!

Ha, just today on CNBC the talking heads were saying Apple is doomed because they'll never have another product as successful as iPhone.

According to the ancient laws of anime: never say never!

If apple threw out products left/right/centre ie samsung/google, we would of ended up with crap like:
ICoffin?
Idoorbell
I jamjar opener

 

[kdarling]

No doubt they defined the problem internally, but the ultimate question for any product is whether it addresses a problem people actually have.

Since it wasn't a product, that question is moot.

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.

I agree with you that engineers often need help designing a product's focus

Some are intent on calling Glass just an experiment. (huge snip)

That would be me and a whole lot of others:

"Google is ending the Glass experiment. " ... "the idea behind the Explorer program was always to see how people would use the technology. "

- TechCrunch

"... the Explorer Edition was never meant for your everyday consumer."

- The Verge

"... the Explorer program, in which software developers and gadget nerds could buy a test version of the product, is over.

- NY Times

And finally:

5 Reasons Why Google’s Glass “Failure” Was a Success

• Innovation requires failure
• There are other potential uses
• Glass provided great PR
• The IP value remains
• Glass set the stage for new developments

 

[IJ Reilly]

Since it wasn't a product, that question is moot.

I think it's at least a bit bizarre to say a thing that is sold to the public "is not a product." If it succeeds at retail, it's a product, and if not, it's an experiment? It seems any company that attempts to pull this stunt is trying to have it both ways. I've already outlined why I think this is a word game, but nobody seems to want to respond to these points, so I guess it isn't worth discussing any further. I would only be repeating myself.

 

[LordVic]

I think it's at least a bit bizarre to say a thing that is sold to the public "is not a product." If it succeeds at retail, it's a product, and if not, it's an experiment? It seems any company that attempts to pull this stunt is trying to have it both ways. I've already outlined why I think this is a word game, but nobody seems to want to respond to these points, so I guess it isn't worth discussing any further. I would only be repeating myself.

Would you say that kickstarter is selling a product though?

Because thats where I think your getting confused. Google Glass is more closely in line business wise to a kickstarter project than a retail product offering.

 

[kdarling]

I think it's at least a bit bizarre to say a thing that is sold to the public "is not a product." If it succeeds at retail, it's a product, and if not, it's an experiment? It seems any company that attempts to pull this stunt is trying to have it both ways. I've already outlined why I think this is a word game, but nobody seems to want to respond to these points, so I guess it isn't worth discussing any further. I would only be repeating myself.

There are others who think the same as you. So no big deal. Any debate is more towards the lighthearted side, as far as I'm concerned

That said, Glass wasn't sold anyplace except from Google. It was clearly made available just so that some users and developers could explore the possibilities. Not as a mass consumer product. It also had a ridiculous price that required a real desire to try it out.

Because of all that, everyone knew (or should've known after a year) that it was a beta device.

It's like when people get hold of an Apple beta release and then complain it's not finished. Well, duh.

 

[IJ Reilly]

There are others who think the same as you. So no big deal. Any debate is more towards the lighthearted side, as far as I'm concerned

That said, Glass wasn't sold anyplace except from Google. It was clearly made available just so that some users and developers could explore the possibilities. Not as a mass consumer product. It also had a ridiculous price that required a real desire to try it out.

Because of all that, everyone knew (or should've known after a year) that it was a beta device.

It's like when people get hold of an Apple beta release and then complain it's not finished. Well, duh.

After which year, the first one when a buyer needed to be part of the limited "explorer" program, or the second year, when anyone could buy one? I see a significant shift in Google's strategy and expectations at this point. Nobody seems prepared to acknowledge this change, which I suppose is why we seem to be talking past each other.

The closest Apple has ever come to a similar strategy is with Apple TV. They may have called it a "hobby" from the start, but I don't think anyone was fooled into believing that Apple's intentions weren't serious. If Apple had sold the TV for a couple of years and then used the "hobby" excuse to walk away from it, just imagine the wailing and moaning that we know would rise from disappointed owners who'd feel abandoned, and critical analysts who are always prepared to say that Apple failed. Google seemingly gets away with this because the expectations for them are so low, relatively.

 

[samcraig]

I think it's at least a bit bizarre to say a thing that is sold to the public "is not a product." If it succeeds at retail, it's a product, and if not, it's an experiment? It seems any company that attempts to pull this stunt is trying to have it both ways. I've already outlined why I think this is a word game, but nobody seems to want to respond to these points, so I guess it isn't worth discussing any further. I would only be repeating myself.

You're hung up on Glass being considered a retail product. I don't think it ever was or was intended to be. Even after opening it up on their own store without an invite. I don't believe their intention was to sell it like hotcakes. The more likely scenario is that they realized that the restriction was no longer needed and the software was far enough along to allow more people to utilize it.

It's an extremely niche device. Especially given the price. You're playing the same word game that other are. So why respond?

The more logical answer is that people don't agree with you. And I think they've stated why.

But I agree - we're beating a dead horse. That poor horse.

 

[Sill]

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.

The best phone I ever had was my original analog cell, which I think was a Nokia 638. Clear as a bell, and the analog transmission meant I had full-duplex communication. (You'd think that in the 21st century, one of these carriers would allow that with digital. Honestly, that simple thing aggravates me more than nearly any other thing on any cell phone)

After that I had a range of phones from Nokia, Moto, LG, Ericsson (the worst phone ever), Moto again, and then my iPhones. The clarity was noticeable compared to my previous phones, and that was all on the same network. However, I did experience a huge amount of dropped or missed calls on my i4. When I switched networks and went to an i5, all that vanished. I've been trouble free since, with the exception of the very last software update, which has introduced some strange but minor problems.

 

[NT1440]

I think it's at least a bit bizarre to say a thing that is sold to the public "is not a product." If it succeeds at retail, it's a product, and if not, it's an experiment? It seems any company that attempts to pull this stunt is trying to have it both ways.

I see you've put words to Google's approach to products for EVERYTHING besides their ad service....

 

[Sill]

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.

That pretty well describes a significant portion of Apple's product introductions during the Jobs era. He did an excellent job of seeing way ahead down a dark and scary corridor and figuring out the best way to get people through it while enjoying themselves. (1.0 version of this metaphor, I'm still working on it)

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.

Well, I know. Or at least I'm pretty sure I do. I wrote a piece of fiction shortly after Steve passed, and I had the watch in there - before it was ever announced or rumored. I think I'm pretty spot on about what it will be able to do, but when I went to publish it I thought "damn, this might actually hurt their road map". I figured that Apple would announce this one little world-changing feature when they went public with the Watch, but it didn't happen.
I'm still on the fence about it. My ego would enjoy my being right and widely known for it, but then if it gave Google yet another way to attack Apple, I don't want any part of it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I see you've put words to Google's approach to products for EVERYTHING besides their ad service....

Advertising feeds the Google beast, just as Windows and Office feed the Microsoft beast. Both of these companies (and not just coincidentally) have trouble finding other things they can do well (and in business, this means profitably). After watching Microsoft's reputation erode as they flailed around for decades in search of the next big thing, I am more than a little surprised that Google isn't now being criticized for their apparent inability to connect with much other than search and advertising. How many whacky, unprofitable projects do they need to pursue before they are called on the question?

Not that I always approve of Apple's approach to product development, but surely the expectations of what they will deliver out of this process is far more grounded in the real world. At least they don't come off like geeks with cash, developing products (or whatever the hell you want to call them) seemingly for their own amusement.

----------

That pretty well describes a significant portion of Apple's product introductions during the Jobs era. He did an excellent job of seeing way ahead down a dark and scary corridor and figuring out the best way to get people through it while enjoying themselves. (1.0 version of this metaphor, I'm still working on it)

I call it solving problems people did not know they had. This also summarizes the issue with Glass. It was a solution looking for a problem, an inversion of Apple's approach.

 

[samcraig]

Advertising feeds the Google beast, just as Windows and Office feed the Microsoft beast. Both of these companies (and not just coincidentally) have trouble finding other things they can do well (and in business, this means profitably). After watching Microsoft's reputation erode as they flailed around for decades in search of the next big thing, I am more than a little surprised that Google isn't now being criticized for their apparent inability to connect with much other than search and advertising. How many whacky, unprofitable projects do they need to pursue before they are called on the question?

Not that I always approve of Apple's approach to product development, but surely the expectations of what they will deliver out of this process is far more grounded in the real world. At least they don't come off like geeks with cash, developing products (or whatever the hell you want to call them) seemingly for their own amusement.

----------



I call it solving problems people did not know they had. This also summarizes the issue with Glass. It was a solution looking for a problem, an inversion of Apple's approach.

What you condemn Google for is what others find intriguing about them. You see things as failed experiments. There's nothing wrong with failure when you are trying to break new ground. Google is involved in a lot of research across many technologies/sectors. They are open about the areas they are exploring and seek help and assistance where they can. You call them whacky and unprofitable. That's part of the formula to true inventing. Just because they don't do it in a shroud of secrecy doesn't mean they need to be called to task on when things are slow to progress or do not succeed. Clearly Apple has a different model. But I would say Apple is more about productizing than about holisitic research. Google productizes too - don't get me wrong.

And on another front -I would say Google has done pretty well with cloud services and their software. They aren't JUST search and advertising. They do other things well.

Apple IS held to different standards because when they release something - they tout is as the best thing ever. They passive-aggressively dismiss everyone for not getting it, or doing it wrong. That their solution is the only right one. They release products. And they do so in secrecy so there's the pre-hype, release and judging, and aftermath. Google many of the times announces what they are working on and invite people to learn more as they progress. Different models. And it should be NO surprise why they are treated differently when it comes to their successes or "failures."

Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.... and all that. Now - based on your comments, does that sound like Apple or Google. Or maybe both?