That's not how marketing works. If Google can't make a compelling argument as to what need this thing will fulfill, people aren't going to look at it in the first place, let alone pay for it. They have to find some way to hook people in initially. Later, people will come up with uses that Google didn't explicitly advertise, but if they can't get enough people to buy it to get to that phase, it will die.
Some people will look at it and buy it, many out of curiosity. Google has deep enough pockets to build something that might not be a viable product, but there are enough geeks who are early adopters of new technologies anyhow. If the product does not live up to expectations or the public finds something else more useful, they will eventually stop using the thing and move on.
A lot of inventions die a quick death. Others have a long, protracted painful death.
Here's a fun example: what happened to the netbook?
How many were sold? How many were used for a few months then ended up on a shelf collecting dust? How many were returned? What is the overall customer satisfaction rating?
Phil Schiller came up with the click wheel idea in the iPod.
I was actually aware of that little tidbit. I took a little artistic license with that one given the whole notion of Fadell being the "father of the iPod." I suppose it's best not to feed into that notion too much. I'm a much bigger fan of Phil.
I was actually aware of that little tidbit. I took a little artistic license with that one given the whole notion of Fadell being the "father of the iPod." I suppose it's best not to feed into that notion too much. I'm a much bigger fan of Phil.
Especially when he's not the father of the iPod. Jon Rubenstein is. That product was in development at Apple long before Fadell was ever hired.
The idea of a HUD in the form of glasses is definitely not new. It was used many years ago in the aerospace industry as a way of viewing wiring diagrams and other information for workers on the floor, plus fighter pilots were using something similar with their helmet and cockpit displays (according to Wikipedia, cockpit displays originated in the '50s).
Let's face it, consumer technology like Google Glass is on its way, and the initial strong pushback is typical. In time, many people will accept much of the new technology's intrusion acceptable. Sure, some people will still hate cellphones, CDs, etc., but the majority of people will understand that the devices can be used properly or used improperly, a judgment call by the individual operator. That's a grey line.
In general, I agree with you. Heck, even automobiles were insulted by horse owners in the early days.
But really, there is no way to aim an internet-connected camera at someone's face politely. The form factor doesn't matter. That's just over the top, like saying that some day it will socially acceptable to walk up to someone on the street and slap them across the cheek. As society becomes more knowledgeable about technology (old people die and kids grow into adults), more and more people also understand that something like glass is nearly impossible to secure, and it's nearly impossible to know whether an individual device has been hacked or not. That kind of knowledge, coupled with an internet-connected camera pointing at your face, is stifling to common private conversation. Really uncool.
Glass clearly has niche areas of great utility, such as medicine, industrial settings, etc., but it's difficult to imagine that it will ever be okay in a typical social setting.
I suppose it's possible that I may be proven wrong some day, but I sure as hell hope not.
Especially when he's not the father of the iPod. Jon Rubenstein is. That product was in development at Apple long before Fadell was ever hired.
Interesting that Fadell has somehow been given that moniker. Given what you and SN pointed out, it seems safe to say that Fadell being the "father of the iPod" didn't come without a degree of self aggrandizement.
Hmm, so Fadell appears to have an unrealistic sense of grandiosity.. looks like him and google are a perfect fit!
Interesting that Fadell has somehow been given that moniker. Given what you and SN pointed out, it seems safe to say that Fadell being the "father of the iPod" didn't come without a degree of self aggrandizement.
Hmm, so Fadell appears to have an unrealistic sense of grandiosity.. looks like him and google are a perfect fit!
Looks like some of that unearned credit had also previously been awarded to Ron Johnson, who likely just carried out Jobs' wishes.
You know, I've always used Google search, and I think it's done well. But honestly, that's the one thing - the only thing - that Google makes any money on. And every quarter it's a race to see if the increase-in-clicks will manage to outpace the drop in revenue-per-click.
All this other stuff- Glass, self driving cars, YouTube, Android, et al is mostly (I think) a blizzard of BS to obscure the fact that the core business - the only profitable business Google is in - is a tenuous proposition.
All this other stuff makes for good copy, but it reminds me a Microsoft's flailing-about of the last ten years, and they had several ongoing profitable product lines, and Google (it seems to me) has but one.
You know, I've always used Google search, and I think it's done well. But honestly, that's the one thing - the only thing - that Google makes any money on. And every quarter it's a race to see if the increase-in-clicks will manage to outpace the drop in revenue-per-click.
All this other stuff- Glass, self driving cars, YouTube, Android, et al is mostly (I think) a blizzard of BS to obscure the fact that the core business - the only profitable business Google is in - is a tenuous proposition.
All this other stuff makes for good copy, but it reminds me a Microsoft's flailing-about of the last ten years, and they had several ongoing profitable product lines, and Google (it seems to me) has but one.
You're dead right. They look at Apple and want to produce 'the next big thing'. But there's no joined-up thinking or coherent strategy.
Comments
That's not how marketing works. If Google can't make a compelling argument as to what need this thing will fulfill, people aren't going to look at it in the first place, let alone pay for it. They have to find some way to hook people in initially. Later, people will come up with uses that Google didn't explicitly advertise, but if they can't get enough people to buy it to get to that phase, it will die.
Some people will look at it and buy it, many out of curiosity. Google has deep enough pockets to build something that might not be a viable product, but there are enough geeks who are early adopters of new technologies anyhow. If the product does not live up to expectations or the public finds something else more useful, they will eventually stop using the thing and move on.
A lot of inventions die a quick death. Others have a long, protracted painful death.
Here's a fun example: what happened to the netbook?
How many were sold? How many were used for a few months then ended up on a shelf collecting dust? How many were returned? What is the overall customer satisfaction rating?
Phil Schiller came up with the click wheel idea in the iPod.
Don't laugh but they're used for corporate marketing events all the time.
I was actually aware of that little tidbit. I took a little artistic license with that one given the whole notion of Fadell being the "father of the iPod." I suppose it's best not to feed into that notion too much. I'm a much bigger fan of Phil.
I thought they had effectively ended the Glass project. For all intents and purposes it's dead.
http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html
Especially when he's not the father of the iPod. Jon Rubenstein is. That product was in development at Apple long before Fadell was ever hired.
Google Glass isn't even an original idea:
http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html
The idea of a HUD in the form of glasses is definitely not new. It was used many years ago in the aerospace industry as a way of viewing wiring diagrams and other information for workers on the floor, plus fighter pilots were using something similar with their helmet and cockpit displays (according to Wikipedia, cockpit displays originated in the '50s).
No. It was way before even that...
No. It was way before even that...
That's from the '60s.
In general, I agree with you. Heck, even automobiles were insulted by horse owners in the early days.
But really, there is no way to aim an internet-connected camera at someone's face politely. The form factor doesn't matter. That's just over the top, like saying that some day it will socially acceptable to walk up to someone on the street and slap them across the cheek. As society becomes more knowledgeable about technology (old people die and kids grow into adults), more and more people also understand that something like glass is nearly impossible to secure, and it's nearly impossible to know whether an individual device has been hacked or not. That kind of knowledge, coupled with an internet-connected camera pointing at your face, is stifling to common private conversation. Really uncool.
Glass clearly has niche areas of great utility, such as medicine, industrial settings, etc., but it's difficult to imagine that it will ever be okay in a typical social setting.
I suppose it's possible that I may be proven wrong some day, but I sure as hell hope not.
That's from the '60s.
I was responding to dualies original post, went away, made a cup of tea and got pipped to the post. But hey...
Mann, an engineer and professor, is actually considered "the father of wearable computers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann
Mann, an engineer and professor, is actually considered "the father of wearable computers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann
There are examples that easily predate his birth (see above).
Interesting that Fadell has somehow been given that moniker. Given what you and SN pointed out, it seems safe to say that Fadell being the "father of the iPod" didn't come without a degree of self aggrandizement.
Hmm, so Fadell appears to have an unrealistic sense of grandiosity.. looks like him and google are a perfect fit!
Interesting that Fadell has somehow been given that moniker. Given what you and SN pointed out, it seems safe to say that Fadell being the "father of the iPod" didn't come without a degree of self aggrandizement.
Hmm, so Fadell appears to have an unrealistic sense of grandiosity.. looks like him and google are a perfect fit!
Looks like some of that unearned credit had also previously been awarded to Ron Johnson, who likely just carried out Jobs' wishes.
You know, I've always used Google search, and I think it's done well. But honestly, that's the one thing - the only thing - that Google makes any money on. And every quarter it's a race to see if the increase-in-clicks will manage to outpace the drop in revenue-per-click.
All this other stuff- Glass, self driving cars, YouTube, Android, et al is mostly (I think) a blizzard of BS to obscure the fact that the core business - the only profitable business Google is in - is a tenuous proposition.
All this other stuff makes for good copy, but it reminds me a Microsoft's flailing-about of the last ten years, and they had several ongoing profitable product lines, and Google (it seems to me) has but one.
You know, I've always used Google search, and I think it's done well. But honestly, that's the one thing - the only thing - that Google makes any money on. And every quarter it's a race to see if the increase-in-clicks will manage to outpace the drop in revenue-per-click.
All this other stuff- Glass, self driving cars, YouTube, Android, et al is mostly (I think) a blizzard of BS to obscure the fact that the core business - the only profitable business Google is in - is a tenuous proposition.
All this other stuff makes for good copy, but it reminds me a Microsoft's flailing-about of the last ten years, and they had several ongoing profitable product lines, and Google (it seems to me) has but one.
You're dead right. They look at Apple and want to produce 'the next big thing'. But there's no joined-up thinking or coherent strategy.