- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Google Glass essentially flopped...
Posted on 2/2/15 at 9:45 am to GFunk
Posted on 2/2/15 at 9:45 am to GFunk
quote:
So how was Apple able to put a phone and tablet out there without a similar experience I wonder?
You say that as if Apple is out there blazing new ground. They put out a phone after years of WATCHING OTHERS create the industry and the tech. And a tablet is simply a scaled-up phone, not an entirely new device. Also Intel, Microsoft, and others created tablet "flops" long before Apple came out with the iPad. Hell, Apple even made that flop called Newton way back when they were still being innovative. I don't think anyone has ever created a hugely successful device that was the first of its kind. Or even the second, third, or tenth of its kind. It's hard to believe that someone can get so wrapped up in Apple's reality distortion field as you are, that you really don't understand the difference between the iPhone and Glass. One is the result of a long history of advances and refinements, while the other is a first stab at creating a new class of device. Have some perspective, and label the "flops" accordingly.
1
Posted on 2/2/15 at 9:56 am to GFunk
quote:
You laughed when I mentioned that they touted it as a replacement for smartphones.
They did just that. My response was directed at you in light of Google-all the way up to one of their cofounders-doing exactly what I said they were doing, which you laughed at. I'm guessing the inference in the emoticon was that you were saying they weren't actually doing that.
I laughed at the idea of a $1,500 pair of glasses replacing smartphones. You chose to run with it in a different direction and show some colors
quote:
He was at TED, talking about how Glass would replace smartphones. If you actually quote the section then I'm guessing you agree. You laughed when I mentioned that they touted it as a replacement for smartphones.
Which I believed you on until I read your article. Guess I need to watch the actual talk now to see how it was presented
Edit: Just watched the Ted Talk, you GREATLY overstate what he said.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 10:08 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 10:36 am to GFunk
Is it really a flop when the whole point is to show off awesome, ahead of its time and impractical stuff Google is working on?
Apple is the revenue generating product selling machine. They take an idea and perfect it for a swath of consumers. Google is an R&D monster.
I like Apple, but Google is doing much cooler stuff.
Apple is the revenue generating product selling machine. They take an idea and perfect it for a swath of consumers. Google is an R&D monster.
I like Apple, but Google is doing much cooler stuff.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 11:02 am to GFunk
quote:
There's always a motive behind threads like these.
quote:
So how was Apple able to put a phone and tablet out there without a similar experience I wonder?
Wish it hadn't been this transparently stupid.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 11:18 am to Korkstand
have an upvote
Posted on 2/2/15 at 11:19 am to ILikeLSUToo
quote:
So how was Apple able to put a phone and tablet out there without a similar experience
wait what?
i owned the original newton.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 11:56 am to CAD703X
If it makes you all feel any better I think Google's Ara Project is going to be a spectacular success. Not a fanboi one way or the other. I am entrenched with Apple but I just think its ironic how the spin goes one way but not the other depending upon which company is discussed here.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 12:41 pm to GFunk
quote:
Not a fanboi one way or the other.
quote:Once again, how is this spin? I don't think anyone thought that the first version of Glass was ever going to be common. It seems like you are projecting this idea onto others just so you can now claim it as spin when people say that it was a good first attempt.
I just think its ironic how the spin goes one way but not the other depending upon which company is discussed here.
quote:Moreso than you think you are, I believe. Even if you hadn't said so, the way you said things in the OP made that painfully obvious.
I am entrenched with Apple
Posted on 2/2/15 at 1:41 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
quote:
Moreso than you think you are, I believe. Even if you hadn't said so, the way you said things in the OP made that painfully obvious.
Compared to a CAD or others here, I'm far from some fanboi, simply because I'm not technically savvy enough to be labeled as such.
Again, I've dealt with Android some, and had I never gotten an iPod Mini, my first smartphone probably would have been an Android and this discussion wouldn't be taking place. If if were a fifth, yadda yadda, I get that its a hypothetical.
Again, not a fanboi, regardless of how you think I might've phrased or worded my OP or subsequent ones.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 3:00 pm to GFunk
quote:Here's the deal...
GFunk
We are here talking about Google Glass, and what Google might make next. Regular people are thinking about how wearables could be more socially acceptable. Developers are thinking about how to write apps to make better use of a persistent screen in one's field of view. I have no doubt these were some of the top goals of Glass, so those are a few big wins.
Whether Google reached a goal with Glass that YOU think they were shooting for is irrelevant. Would they have liked everyone and their mother to rush out and buy a pair? Of course. But I'm pretty sure the people making decisions at Google are some realistic folks, and the project has so far succeeded at what they were expecting. They know they are pushing the envelope, but sometimes that's what it takes to truly innovate.
quote:So why the snarky comment about iPhone and iPad, as if they are anywhere close to the same level of innovation as Glass? You also claimed to be open to being convinced, but have so far totally resisted any and all attempts.
Again, not a fanboi, regardless of how you think I might've phrased or worded my OP or subsequent ones.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 4:07 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
quote:
So why the snarky comment about iPhone and iPad, as if they are anywhere close to the same level of innovation as Glass? You also claimed to be open to being convinced, but have so far totally resisted any and all attempts.
I'd say the iPhone completely and utterly changed the wireless phone and wireless computing spaces. Apps did not exist and neither did anyone's idea for a need for "data" packages with their wireless bills.
Otherwise, I'm unconvinced because I'd say its a failure compared to what they wanted to do. There's been plenty of successful failures in history and I don't-and really haven't tried to-deny this might be one of them. Google is so big it tends to fall forward, even when it falls in public. I just think this is one of those times.
I notice that folks will jump on Apple-for any reason-and yet there is a predictable defense here for what Google does. Even a spin where failures and their C-level employees saying they have to pause or stop spending money on programs and reassign them is somehow what they were always after the whole time.
Just doesn't seem to make sense on the surface.
No fanboi. Just honestly looking at things as objectively as I can.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 4:56 pm to GFunk
quote:I figured you would.
I'd say the iPhone completely and utterly changed the wireless phone and wireless computing spaces.
quote:Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile had "apps" long before the iPhone came out, as did Symbian. Hell, I had a poker app on my Nokia 6230 circa 2003.
Apps did not exist
quote:I certainly had data on my plan before the iPhone came out.
neither did anyone's idea for a need for "data" packages with their wireless bills.
Do you know about ANYTHING that happened before the iPhone?
quote:And what did they want to do? If you'd take off the Apple-tinted glasses, maybe you'd see that they are still taking wearables where they want them to go.
Otherwise, I'm unconvinced because I'd say its a failure compared to what they wanted to do.
quote:A few jump on Apple (just as a few jump on Google), but most people here jump on Apple users more than Apple itself.
I notice that folks will jump on Apple-for any reason
quote:And plenty of criticism of Google to go along with that, if you care to pay attention.
and yet there is a predictable defense here for what Google does.
quote:Link? Last I checked, Google doesn't even release sales figures, much less specific internal R&D spending.
Even a spin where failures and their C-level employees saying they have to pause or stop spending money on programs and reassign them
quote:Google is after profit. I don't think that has ever or will ever change.
is somehow what they were always after the whole time.
quote:Similar to a lot of things Google does. They operated a free 411 service for a few years. There was speculation that they would start running audio ads or monetize it in some way. But no, Google just shut it down one day. Turns out they were just collecting voice samples to improve their speech recognition software.
Just doesn't seem to make sense on the surface.
quote:Repeating that over and over doesn't make it true.
No fanboi.
quote:
Just honestly looking at things as objectively as I can.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:10 am to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
quote:
I figured you would.
You disagree? Do tell.
quote:
Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile had "apps" long before the iPhone came out, as did Symbian. Hell, I had a poker app on my Nokia 6230 circa 2003.
I had a Motorola RAZR which was the iPhone of its day in 2004/2005 and later became ubiquitous. It had innovations like Bluetooth where you could send ringtones back and forth, and even a web browser. But to say that those apps are comparable to what the iPhone ushered in with their versions?
(Personal aside as I'm typing this: Did anyone else as an OT Poor remember going to Wal-Mart.com and saving the .mp3 extension of the :30 song clips they put online onto your Razr for what amounted to free ringtones back in the day? Wait...Was I the only one? Oh...okay)
It's like saying, "Heck, the Lamborghini Zesto Elemento isn't innovative. There were plenty of cars with stick shifts and combustible engines long before it!" Or, "Tesla isn't innovative. There have been electric cars out for years!"
quote:
I certainly had data on my plan before the iPhone came out. Do you know about ANYTHING that happened before the iPhone?
You're being trite and I'm not going to respond but I will say that the phone that was the "it" phone immediately preceding the iPhone had nowhere near what the iPhone brought to the table. Touchscreen technology, using multi-touch display, almost no buttons necessary to utilize the majority of the phone's features. Please don't tell me the Blackjack you had on Cingular Wireless was comparable. It's just not. It's not even derivative. It took mobile phones in a dramatically different direction. Denying that or downplaying it is just as much of a biased response as anything I've said here.
quote:
And what did they want to do? If you'd take off the Apple-tinted glasses, maybe you'd see that they are still taking wearables where they want them to go.
So you still say its not a failure? I mean...I'm not denying-and even said so in my OP-that Google would mine a treasure trove of data from early adopters, the few folks in the public who bought it, and especially devs who worked on it.
But still denying its failure? Why are such esteemed outlets as the Harvard Business Review and the Atlantic in disagreement with you and others on this board I wonder?
LINK
LINK /
Are they really taking wearables where they want to go? Their CFO seems to think that they're doing something different.
quote:
“take a pause and take the time to reset their strategy.”
From the article I just linked from the Atlantic...
quote:
Google Glass, it should be said, isn't dead. Mountain View is spinning the Glass team reorganization as the next step for a commercial device to come to market, though it remains vague on when that will actually happen. But Google's very public failure (and other hardware companies' seeming disinterest in following their folly) probably means that smart glasses are a non-starter in the near term. When Google or its competitors return to the idea, they would be well served to leave the camera at home.
So if they are admitting the need to reset the strategy, or start over, how is this them taking wearables where they want to go? Isn't this an admission of the fact that Google Glass was on its way somewhere they did not want it to go? If not, why the need for a pause or reset?
Trust me these aren't the only articles I could find when I searched for "Google Glass failure" on (wait for it) Google News (you'd think they would adjust those algorithms to make those articles more difficult to find. I'm kidding. Sort've).
The majority of them all say the same thing I said in the OP. Google Glass isn't dead and Google will get tons of data and insight from what they did. But everyone who is anyone is saying it failed. I remain unconvinced as to your protestations otherwise.
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 10:12 am
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:22 am to GFunk
quote:
From the article I just linked from the Atlantic...
quote:
Google Glass, it should be said, isn't dead. Mountain View is spinning the Glass team reorganization as the next step for a commercial device to come to market, though it remains vague on when that will actually happen. But Google's very public failure (and other hardware companies' seeming disinterest in following their folly)
wait what? Because some blogger called it a failure, you're using that to bolster your argument?
who is this esteemed journalist at the atlantic anyway?
quote:
Jake Swearingen
Jake Swearingen is an associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees social media. He was previously the digital director at Modern Farmer.
Education University of Arkansas at Fayetteville
so farmer jake calls google glass a public failure and you state that as if it came straight from google's CEO.
..and then you cite as further proof, other articles dogpiling on glass?
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 10:26 am
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:25 am to CAD703X
quote:
CAD703X
quote:
so farmer jake calls google glass a public failure and you state that as if it came straight from google's CEO. ..and then you cite as further proof, other articles dogpiling on glass?
Please state your qualifications to call him into question? I also cited a quote from Google's CFO. You gonna laugh at him too?
I find any response from you as some sort've objective voice in this discussion as incredibly hypocritical. You know your posting history and so do I. So do most people for that matter. I've stayed out of these arguments for the most part.
But you're reaching for Clintonian levels of defense here and its painfully obvious. Would you like for me to link additional articles but vet the author's resume to you before I'm allowed to? I had no clue you were the ultimate arbiter on objectivity in the media as it pertains to the reporting on this story.
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 10:28 am
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:26 am to GFunk
quote:
I also cited a quote from Google's CFO.
link where he called glass a public failure?
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:31 am to CAD703X
quote:
CAD703X
quote:
link where he called glass a public failure?
If you can't keep up with the response from Korkstand and my response to him as to how it relates to this thread, I can't help you. Korkstand defended Glass and Google by saying they were "still taking wearables where they wanted to go."
The quote I referenced was in direct response to that. But I guess that's inarguable because since he works for Google as a C-Level employee you'll stay away from that one.
If you're looking for a quote from a Google Employee-whether we're talking a custodian or a C-level employee-that puts on the record that Glass is a failure, you're just plain stupid.
We know you aren't. What you are is a repetitive, broken record player of a troll that attacks anything and everything APPL and lauds Google.
Your act is as stale as week old, left out, unwrapped Kraft Singles and a broken record most are tired of. Though you do some fantastic work in home automation threads
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:33 am to GFunk
quote:
What you are is a repetitive, broken record player of a troll that attacks anything and everything APPL and lauds Google.
link?
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:38 am to CAD703X
quote:
CAD703X
quote:
link?
Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:40 am to GFunk
quote:Maybe I am "biased" in my downplaying of the iPhone, because I owned a Dell Axim in 2005, on which I installed Skype to place internet calls. It had a touchscreen (though not multitouch), allowed 3rd party apps (which the original iPhone did not), had a very limited set of buttons and most actions were done using the touchscreen. Here is a photo of it:
You're being trite and I'm not going to respond but I will say that the phone that was the "it" phone immediately preceding the iPhone had nowhere near what the iPhone brought to the table. Touchscreen technology, using multi-touch display, almost no buttons necessary to utilize the majority of the phone's features. Please don't tell me the Blackjack you had on Cingular Wireless was comparable. It's just not. It's not even derivative. It took mobile phones in a dramatically different direction. Denying that or downplaying it is just as much of a biased response as anything I've said here.
Look at that device and tell me, with a straight face, that the iPhone was a giant leap from there. The only differences between it and the iPhone were a cell radio, multitouch, an OS that took advantage of multitouch, the inevitable 2 year advances in hardware, and a central app repository (which didn't come around until iPhoneOS2 in 2008, and was "borrowed" from the linux world). The iPhone was a baby step in the evolution of devices when compared to Glass. Glass pushes the limits of miniaturization and social acceptance.
But since you mentioned bias, why are we even talking about Apple stuff in a Google thread? Oh, yeah, you brought it up. But no bias, right?
quote:Because their definition of failure differs from Google's and mine?
But still denying its failure? Why are such esteemed outlets as the Harvard Business Review and the Atlantic in disagreement with you and others on this board I wonder?
quote:Like I already said, they're taking wearables to where they are profitable to Google. That's it. If the day comes that everybody gives up on making wearables that aren't watches, then start your failure thread. But I look forward to more public beta products that lead to a cool future. A lot of time passed between Apple's Newton "failure" and iPhone. Other Apple "failures" include the Lisa and Macintosh Portable. But I wouldn't call these failures. These devices were ahead of their time, sure, but they paved the way for Apple's future.
Are they really taking wearables where they want to go? Their CFO seems to think that they're doing something different.
quote:Because that's how it works on the bleeding edge. You can call products that don't achieve commercial success "failures" or "flops" if you want, I guess, but there is a huge, HUGE, difference between making a million of something, putting them in stores, and then having to throw them all away, vs. creating a beta version of a product to collect data.
So if they are admitting the need to reset the strategy, or start over, how is this them taking wearables where they want to go? Isn't this an admission of the fact that Google Glass was on its way somewhere they did not want it to go? If not, why the need for a pause or reset?
quote:Why do you get to be the judge of who is "anyone"? A writer at HBR? He's someone?! If it didn't make money, of course a business mag will label it a failure. But do you honestly, truly believe that Google thought this first shot at Glass would make money? I don't think anyone in this world believes that.
But everyone who is anyone is saying it failed. I remain unconvinced as to your protestations otherwise.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News