In a post-Steve world, 20 years on, if/when robotics become a primary consumer focus, Google may be our new Apple.
Robots will probably follow a similar path as most consumer electronics products... expensive and limited in function initially, and growing in popularity as cost decreases and usefulness improves. But the question is, what do consumers need or want from robots? Maids? Butlers? Companions? Pet caretakers? Robots with narrow skills will slowly be replaced with general purpose humanoid robots that will be able to perform innumerable tasks, often better than humans. Watch for the eventual merging of immortal robot body and human consciousness... in 30 to 40... or 50 years.
You guys sound like the old men who sit on their porches and shake their canes at the "goddarned kids these days" who listen to music with their car windows down and laugh exuberantly when they're talking to friends. You should take a second to consider how many commonplace items that we depend on daily were at some point hopeless R&D money pits. If you went back to 1940 and told someone that you wanted to invent an worldwide network that would allow anyone to find any piece of information available to the public in under thirty seconds they would laugh you out of the room. Or look at cell phones in the 80s... "Who needs 'em? Back in my day, we knew the value of talking to a person face to face!"
i think its awesome that Google does stuff like this. Like you said, what other company would put money into projects like this that they wont see an immediate return on investment, if not ever, on. They are doing cool things because they are engineers in a position to put capital into their wacky ideas. If ANYTHING good comes from this, its a great thing in my opinon. more power to them.
From a business perspective, this is a terrible use of capital. Does Google plan to become a car company next?
Don't whitewash Google on this. Face it. They're a public corporation. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. This means making appropriate business decisions, and this sure isn't an appropriate business decision.
You guys sound like the old men who sit on their porches and shake their canes at the "goddarned kids these days" who listen to music with their car windows down and laugh exuberantly when they're talking to friends. You should take a second to consider how many commonplace items that we depend on daily were at some point hopeless R&D money pits. If you went back to 1940 and told someone that you wanted to invent an worldwide network that would allow anyone to find any piece of information available to the public in under thirty seconds they would laugh you out of the room. Or look at cell phones in the 80s... "Who needs 'em? Back in my day, we knew the value of talking to a person face to face!"
You are missing the point. I think futuristic toys should be developed. I just don't think the Google play room is the right place for it to develop. To keep with your World War II era analogy, no I don't think it would have been very helpful for a bunch of succssul 1940s entreprenuers to sit around brainstorming how to make the world wide web. The world wide web was hatched at the right time and the right place from people working on real products that needed another 50 years to develop. There were thousands of tools and discoveries in instrumentation and materials chemistry that were necessary to make the microprocessors necessary for the world wide web to happen. Thinking about it in 1940 would have been a waste of time.
Or what about your example of cell phones in the early 80s. Do you think we would have gotten the iPhone sooner if Steve Jobs would have built a lab in the early 80s to figure out how to make touch screen phones? I think not. He would have wasted 15 years of his life. He wouldn't have had time to create real businesses like NeXT and PIXAR and he wouldn't have been in a position to build the real iPhone. The google boys and their tinker toys are just day dreaming. Its stupid and a waste of shareholder money. There is nothing wrong with day dreaming. Just do it on your own nickle, not the company's revenue.
You are missing the point. I think futuristic toys should be developed. I just don't think the Google play room is the right place for it to develop. To keep with your World War II era analogy, no I don't think it would have been very helpful for a bunch of succssul 1940s entreprenuers to sit around brainstorming how to make the world wide web. The world wide web was hatched at the right time and the right place from people working on real products that needed another 50 years to develop. There were thousands of tools and discoveries in instrumentation and materials chemistry that were necessary to make the microprocessors necessary for the world wide web to happen. Thinking about it in 1940 would have been a waste of time.
Or what about your example of cell phones in the early 80s. Do you think we would have gotten the iPhone sooner if Steve Jobs would have built a lab in the early 80s to figure out how to make touch screen phones? I think not. He would have wasted 15 years of his life. He wouldn't have had time to create real businesses like NeXT and PIXAR and he wouldn't have been in a position to build the real iPhone. The google boys and their tinker toys are just day dreaming. Its stupid and a waste of shareholder money. There is nothing wrong with day dreaming. Just do it on your own nickle, not the company's revenue.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that someone in the 1940s could develop the internet or that Steve Jobs could have hatched the iPhone in the 80s. All I'm saying is that as time passes, complex technologies find their places in our lives in ways that people couldn't have predicted decades earlier. These technologies take years to get to the point where they can be marketed to consumers, and all that developmental work has to start somewhere. As an example relevant to the article, Google may very well be working on robots that can walk and have a minimal awareness of their environment (check out Honda's ASIMO for reference). But this level of technology would only be the starting point of much more advanced robots that will be able to be fully interactive members of society (to the extent that they are programmed). It's something that takes place one step at a time, and there is no reason to have a stifling attitude towards the R&D money that any company wants to spend on technologies that have no place in life as we currently live it.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that someone in the 1940s could develop the internet or that Steve Jobs could have hatched the iPhone in the 80s. All I'm saying is that as time passes, complex technologies find their places in our lives in ways that people couldn't have predicted decades earlier. These technologies take years to get to the point where they can be marketed to consumers, and all that developmental work has to start somewhere. As an example relevant to the article, Google may very well be working on robots that can walk and have a minimal awareness of their environment (check out Honda's ASIMO for reference). But this level of technology would only be the starting point of much more advanced robots that will be able to be fully interactive members of society (to the extent that they are programmed). It's something that takes place one step at a time, and there is no reason to have a stifling attitude towards the R&D money that any company wants to spend on technologies that have no place in life as we currently live it.
The idea of a generation of people working on technology independently and then the next generation advancing upon prior research, however fringe, and making it more useful, more practical and advancing the foundation to the next level to the point where it can actually effect our lives is lost amongst a lot of the kneejerk Google haters here....despite the fact that Apple is one such generational leap making company whose products would be impossible without the fringe test workers (trial and error and oddity) to pave the way.
i think its awesome that Google does stuff like this. Like you said, what other company would put money into projects like this that they wont see an immediate return on investment, if not ever, on. They are doing cool things because they are engineers in a position to put capital into their wacky ideas. If ANYTHING good comes from this, its a great thing in my opinon. more power to them.
Well since they dont almost pay any taxes they can probably burn some money in a way that probably wont lead to any products...
First I'd like to say that I think Apple products slay all others in terms of design, functionality, and beauty. And as far as I can tell it's the greatest company in the world... But I will never badmouth Google for putting effort into all of these futuristic ideas. Only an idiot would try to make Googles scientific curiosity sound negative. iOS vs Android aside, I think that the long term future of technology belongs to both AAPL and GOOG. I wish Google didn't steal from AAPL they way they did, but in the end i think that AAPL and GOOG will be the two companies that really usher in the beautiful future that were all headed for. GOOG just needs to show a little more respect to AAPL and not try to steal and beat them at their own game. If AAPL and GOOG would just work together instead of fight, I think that together they could have us living the kind of futuristic lives that were all destined for in the greatest, smoothest, fastest way. I'm starting to think that iPhone should allow Android the same way Mac allows Windows... What do we have to lose? Nothing! Because eventually the Android user would realiZe iOS is better...
According to Isaacson's biography of Jobs, when Apple decided they wanted to get rid of Jobs, one of the first ideas they came up with was to build an off-campus "lab" to research the future and put Jobs in charge of it. The idea would be to get Jobs away from anyone doing real work without incurring the publicity cost of having the founder leave. Obviously Google had the same idea with Sergey Brin (maybe Jobs even suggested it to Larry Page).
The ideas in this article are mostly ridiculous; the kind of stuff the MIT Media Lab was doing in the 90s. The most impressive thing is the self-driving car, which has long been a project at Stanford University, but now has the addition of a Google logo on the side.
Are you all a bunch of douche bags here or what? It's great that Google is willing and able to do this research. Fringe research can and does lead to practical applications. Do a search on all the practical applications that have come out of NASA research even though much of it's intended use could be deemed "pie in the sky" nonsense like people here want to consider Google's lab.
Are you all a bunch of douche bags here or what? It's great that Google is willing and able to do this research. Fringe research can and does lead to practical applications. Do a search on all the practical applications that have come out of NASA research even though much of it's intended use could be deemed "pie in the sky" nonsense like people here want to consider Google's lab.
They have to hate Google because they believe Jobs was their father and they are carrying out his duties or something like that.
Also Apple exists in a void and can only inspire but can never be inspired.
They also came up with everything on their own...no tech history.
Sure, but wouldn't it be even better of Google invested some money in creating something useful? Like making their own OS rather than blindly copying (and stealing) everything in sight?
I don't think the existence of these Google Labs are in ANY WAY constraining Google's ability to make their own OS.
If the money was not spent here, it would be lying around in a bank account somewhere, and not being used elsewhere. Google has a ton of cash sitting around. None of their projects are suffering for a lack of investment.
This, combined with their 20% time, makes Google one of the only American companies that is actually spending time/money on R&D which is focused at more than the immediate term, which is quite commendable.
They have to hate Google because they believe Jobs was their father and they are carrying out his duties or something like that.
Also Apple exists in a void and can only inspire but can never be inspired.
They also came up with everything on their own...no tech history.
Nice Strawman.
If this was indeed the case, how in the world do you explain Coverflow and Siri? 2 products and technologies which were not only bought from 3rd parties, but Apple didn't even bother to change the name of the technology? If Apple's fans indeed did think Apple invented everything on their own, wouldn't Apple put at least the slightest effort to hide the fact that these were products purchased from outside, you know, by at least changing the name?
All the ideas we know about (and those mentioned here as well), are more "pie-in-the-sky" than "shoot-for-the-stars."
You wouldn't see Apple or Microsoft invest a thin dime into something as absolutely ridiculous as a space elevator, or any of the rest of these futurist daydreams.
I wonder how much money was wasted on that Internet connected signalling light bulb alone? Millions probably, and all just to prove that it's possible to transmit data through a regular lightbulb.
Who will install these lightbulbs? Why would anyone transmit data over a lightbulb? We are all supposed to buy these things and then that *one* scenario, when the internet is down, but electric power is still working, we will all turn to our kitchen lightbulbs to get data?
Right. \
Wrong.
The light bulbs will be capable of being remotely controlled by Android devices. Kind of like fancy, expensive home automation packages, but almost the same price as an LED light bulb, with a cheap, mass produced chip built into it.
Comments
In a post-Steve world, 20 years on, if/when robotics become a primary consumer focus, Google may be our new Apple.
Robots will probably follow a similar path as most consumer electronics products... expensive and limited in function initially, and growing in popularity as cost decreases and usefulness improves. But the question is, what do consumers need or want from robots? Maids? Butlers? Companions? Pet caretakers? Robots with narrow skills will slowly be replaced with general purpose humanoid robots that will be able to perform innumerable tasks, often better than humans. Watch for the eventual merging of immortal robot body and human consciousness... in 30 to 40... or 50 years.
i think its awesome that Google does stuff like this. Like you said, what other company would put money into projects like this that they wont see an immediate return on investment, if not ever, on. They are doing cool things because they are engineers in a position to put capital into their wacky ideas. If ANYTHING good comes from this, its a great thing in my opinon. more power to them.
From a business perspective, this is a terrible use of capital. Does Google plan to become a car company next?
Don't whitewash Google on this. Face it. They're a public corporation. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. This means making appropriate business decisions, and this sure isn't an appropriate business decision.
Uh, Microsoft bought Surface.
This will be interesting... so who did Microsoft buy Surface off and when did this occur???
You guys sound like the old men who sit on their porches and shake their canes at the "goddarned kids these days" who listen to music with their car windows down and laugh exuberantly when they're talking to friends. You should take a second to consider how many commonplace items that we depend on daily were at some point hopeless R&D money pits. If you went back to 1940 and told someone that you wanted to invent an worldwide network that would allow anyone to find any piece of information available to the public in under thirty seconds they would laugh you out of the room. Or look at cell phones in the 80s... "Who needs 'em? Back in my day, we knew the value of talking to a person face to face!"
You are missing the point. I think futuristic toys should be developed. I just don't think the Google play room is the right place for it to develop. To keep with your World War II era analogy, no I don't think it would have been very helpful for a bunch of succssul 1940s entreprenuers to sit around brainstorming how to make the world wide web. The world wide web was hatched at the right time and the right place from people working on real products that needed another 50 years to develop. There were thousands of tools and discoveries in instrumentation and materials chemistry that were necessary to make the microprocessors necessary for the world wide web to happen. Thinking about it in 1940 would have been a waste of time.
Or what about your example of cell phones in the early 80s. Do you think we would have gotten the iPhone sooner if Steve Jobs would have built a lab in the early 80s to figure out how to make touch screen phones? I think not. He would have wasted 15 years of his life. He wouldn't have had time to create real businesses like NeXT and PIXAR and he wouldn't have been in a position to build the real iPhone. The google boys and their tinker toys are just day dreaming. Its stupid and a waste of shareholder money. There is nothing wrong with day dreaming. Just do it on your own nickle, not the company's revenue.
A tidbit of trivia; the Kinect-like interface seen in Minority Report came from consultation between Spielberg and the Microsoft team.
Unlikely. Minority Report was released to movie theaters in 2002. PrimeSense, the Israeli company that developed Kinect, was founded in 2005.
The day GoogleNet became self-aware...
You are missing the point. I think futuristic toys should be developed. I just don't think the Google play room is the right place for it to develop. To keep with your World War II era analogy, no I don't think it would have been very helpful for a bunch of succssul 1940s entreprenuers to sit around brainstorming how to make the world wide web. The world wide web was hatched at the right time and the right place from people working on real products that needed another 50 years to develop. There were thousands of tools and discoveries in instrumentation and materials chemistry that were necessary to make the microprocessors necessary for the world wide web to happen. Thinking about it in 1940 would have been a waste of time.
Or what about your example of cell phones in the early 80s. Do you think we would have gotten the iPhone sooner if Steve Jobs would have built a lab in the early 80s to figure out how to make touch screen phones? I think not. He would have wasted 15 years of his life. He wouldn't have had time to create real businesses like NeXT and PIXAR and he wouldn't have been in a position to build the real iPhone. The google boys and their tinker toys are just day dreaming. Its stupid and a waste of shareholder money. There is nothing wrong with day dreaming. Just do it on your own nickle, not the company's revenue.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that someone in the 1940s could develop the internet or that Steve Jobs could have hatched the iPhone in the 80s. All I'm saying is that as time passes, complex technologies find their places in our lives in ways that people couldn't have predicted decades earlier. These technologies take years to get to the point where they can be marketed to consumers, and all that developmental work has to start somewhere. As an example relevant to the article, Google may very well be working on robots that can walk and have a minimal awareness of their environment (check out Honda's ASIMO for reference). But this level of technology would only be the starting point of much more advanced robots that will be able to be fully interactive members of society (to the extent that they are programmed). It's something that takes place one step at a time, and there is no reason to have a stifling attitude towards the R&D money that any company wants to spend on technologies that have no place in life as we currently live it.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that someone in the 1940s could develop the internet or that Steve Jobs could have hatched the iPhone in the 80s. All I'm saying is that as time passes, complex technologies find their places in our lives in ways that people couldn't have predicted decades earlier. These technologies take years to get to the point where they can be marketed to consumers, and all that developmental work has to start somewhere. As an example relevant to the article, Google may very well be working on robots that can walk and have a minimal awareness of their environment (check out Honda's ASIMO for reference). But this level of technology would only be the starting point of much more advanced robots that will be able to be fully interactive members of society (to the extent that they are programmed). It's something that takes place one step at a time, and there is no reason to have a stifling attitude towards the R&D money that any company wants to spend on technologies that have no place in life as we currently live it.
The idea of a generation of people working on technology independently and then the next generation advancing upon prior research, however fringe, and making it more useful, more practical and advancing the foundation to the next level to the point where it can actually effect our lives is lost amongst a lot of the kneejerk Google haters here....despite the fact that Apple is one such generational leap making company whose products would be impossible without the fringe test workers (trial and error and oddity) to pave the way.
i think its awesome that Google does stuff like this. Like you said, what other company would put money into projects like this that they wont see an immediate return on investment, if not ever, on. They are doing cool things because they are engineers in a position to put capital into their wacky ideas. If ANYTHING good comes from this, its a great thing in my opinon. more power to them.
Well since they dont almost pay any taxes they can probably burn some money in a way that probably wont lead to any products...
The name alone says it all…Geek meets lousy taste in sitcoms
The ideas in this article are mostly ridiculous; the kind of stuff the MIT Media Lab was doing in the 90s. The most impressive thing is the self-driving car, which has long been a project at Stanford University, but now has the addition of a Google logo on the side.
Are you all a bunch of douche bags here or what? It's great that Google is willing and able to do this research. Fringe research can and does lead to practical applications. Do a search on all the practical applications that have come out of NASA research even though much of it's intended use could be deemed "pie in the sky" nonsense like people here want to consider Google's lab.
They have to hate Google because they believe Jobs was their father and they are carrying out his duties or something like that.
Also Apple exists in a void and can only inspire but can never be inspired.
They also came up with everything on their own...no tech history.
Uh, Microsoft bought Surface.
No, Microsoft bought Kinect. Surface was developed in house.
Guess which one was actually popular...
Sure, but wouldn't it be even better of Google invested some money in creating something useful? Like making their own OS rather than blindly copying (and stealing) everything in sight?
I don't think the existence of these Google Labs are in ANY WAY constraining Google's ability to make their own OS.
If the money was not spent here, it would be lying around in a bank account somewhere, and not being used elsewhere. Google has a ton of cash sitting around. None of their projects are suffering for a lack of investment.
This, combined with their 20% time, makes Google one of the only American companies that is actually spending time/money on R&D which is focused at more than the immediate term, which is quite commendable.
They have to hate Google because they believe Jobs was their father and they are carrying out his duties or something like that.
Also Apple exists in a void and can only inspire but can never be inspired.
They also came up with everything on their own...no tech history.
Nice Strawman.
If this was indeed the case, how in the world do you explain Coverflow and Siri? 2 products and technologies which were not only bought from 3rd parties, but Apple didn't even bother to change the name of the technology? If Apple's fans indeed did think Apple invented everything on their own, wouldn't Apple put at least the slightest effort to hide the fact that these were products purchased from outside, you know, by at least changing the name?
What a waste.
All the ideas we know about (and those mentioned here as well), are more "pie-in-the-sky" than "shoot-for-the-stars."
You wouldn't see Apple or Microsoft invest a thin dime into something as absolutely ridiculous as a space elevator, or any of the rest of these futurist daydreams.
I wonder how much money was wasted on that Internet connected signalling light bulb alone? Millions probably, and all just to prove that it's possible to transmit data through a regular lightbulb.
Who will install these lightbulbs? Why would anyone transmit data over a lightbulb? We are all supposed to buy these things and then that *one* scenario, when the internet is down, but electric power is still working, we will all turn to our kitchen lightbulbs to get data?
Right.
Wrong.
The light bulbs will be capable of being remotely controlled by Android devices. Kind of like fancy, expensive home automation packages, but almost the same price as an LED light bulb, with a cheap, mass produced chip built into it.
Brilliant.
We have millions of hunger people ?
Homeless people ?
Pollution ?
A government that's a wreck ?
An economy that's just hanging on by a tread ?
A growing gap between the wealthy and middle class (Hell lower class don't seem to count any more)
War, Hate and so many other issues right here on this planet.
Let's spend a little bit more wisely, and deal with the here and now ? now if at all possible.
Skip