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

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by CAD703X

Liberty Island

Member since Jul 2008

78761 posts

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

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Korkstand

Member since Nov 2003

28738 posts

Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:40 am to GFunk

quote:
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.

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:

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:
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?

Because their definition of failure differs from Google's and mine?

quote:
Are they really taking wearables where they want to go? Their CFO seems to think that they're doing something different.

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.

quote:
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?

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.

quote:
But everyone who is anyone is saying it failed. I remain unconvinced as to your protestations otherwise.

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.

1 ...

Report Post

Tech Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board