re: Google Glass essentially flopped...

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.