Ex-Apple iPod chief Tony Fadell to oversee Google's Glass project after reorg

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 63
    maestro64 wrote: »
    I though this was a dead product after people using them were found to be getting headache and such. I guess google it willing to take on the "Jerk" type lawsuits that will come later.

    Google is good at hiring people who were not the originator behind the ideas they are buying. They think that Fadell was the master mind behind the ipod. We all know it was Jobs which made it a success. He is going to end up the same way Rubin end up, managing special projects (maybe glasses is the special project) until they can figure out how to get rid of him. Yep, nest is turning big dividends for google.

    Isn't "special projects" located deep in the bowels of Google... Deep, as in very deep...
  • Reply 42 of 63
    pdq2 wrote: »
    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.

    Google reminds me more of Xerox in their final years of profitability. They had these laboratories where they were working on anything but improving copier technology (and eventually got lapped in the arena they had been leaders). Meanwhile they produced a lot of great things that they couldn't see a way to monetize. Jobs saw the value immediately and immediately built a money-machine product line with one of their ideas.

    The management at Google doesn't have any more of clue how to turn their acquisitions into profit centers then Xerox did of the research they did. Both companies had the misfortunes of being one-nit wonders right out the gate and never learned how to repeat their early success.
  • Reply 43 of 63
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Reply 44 of 63
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    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!

    On Nest's website he also claimed he lead the development of the first 3 iPhones? Lead? I'm sure Scott Forstall and Jony Ive would have something to say about that,
  • Reply 45 of 63
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member
    Maybe if they launched Google Glass as a business product to those that would find heads-up displays useful. (Couriers/medical/logistics.) Instead of pushing a completely raw product on the consumer market with nothing more than a bunch of photoshopped models running around trying, in vain, to make the product "sexy". In that time they could also advance the design and size to consumer tastes.

    Meanwhile if bluetooth earpieces which are smaller and less obtrusive are seen as antisocial and ugly, how is this monster ever going to get street cred. (hint: not without significant technological advances that hide everything ugly about the product.)

    Jumped the f'n shark.
  • Reply 46 of 63



    lol fadell has become a glasshole¡

  • Reply 47 of 63
    davendaven Posts: 696member
    I thing Google missed its opportunity with glass. Once the term glasshole caught on there was too much negativity with the product. Even if someone wants to buy Google Glass, they will be ridiculed by the people around them who aren't willing to pay the entry price and will have a backlash about the invasion of their privacy.
  • Reply 48 of 63
    Give them to the police to wear.
  • Reply 49 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Big Brother 84 View Post

     



    No. It was way before even that...

     


     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    That's from the '60s.


    Reminds me of the Thunderbirds or Fireball XL5……in Supermarionation!

  • Reply 50 of 63
    They need to stop trying to put all the tech in the glasses. And take a look at the CC glasses used at movie theaters. So much better looking, more comfy etc
  • Reply 51 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Big Brother 84 View Post

     



    No. It was way before even that...

     




    It's amazing how much this guy looks like Chillian Murphy.

  • Reply 52 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    On Nest's website he also claimed he lead the development of the first 3 iPhones? Lead? I'm sure Scott Forstall and Jony Ive would have something to say about that,



    Didn't Apple go after the guy who claimed to have been co-creator of Beats on his website? I wonder why they don't go after Tony.

  • Reply 53 of 63
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member

    I don't get Google's eagerness to get into fashion?

     

    Google Glass would be a great driver aid:

     

    In the car as headless display.

    Or on the motorbike, when it is incorporated in (the visor of) the helmet. Now, that would be something useful ...

     

    Google ought to be making helmets instead of sunglasses. And have the helmet tightly integrated with Google maps.

  • Reply 54 of 63
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mr O View Post

     

    In the car as headless display.


     

    It would be really useful in the car as you enter a different kind of reality when you are driving. It would be more like a utilitarian device instead of a fashion statement:

     

    Google Glass could give directions when tightly integrated with Goole maps.

    It could also measure fatigue and warn the driver when he is falling asleep.

  • Reply 55 of 63
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member

    Didn't Apple go after the guy who claimed to have been co-creator of Beats on his website? I wonder why they don't go after Tony.

    Because I'm sure he had some involvement with iPhone up until he left. But claiming he led the team that developed the first 3 generations? Seems like embellishing a bit.
  • Reply 56 of 63
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,335member
    Quote:
     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.


     

    I think it's quite the opposite. Google's ad revenue from search is so insanely profitable and has such high margins that they can afford to invest billions and billions of dollars in speculative pure research that is way out there on the fringe and outside of their primary area of focus. Their ad money allows them to be venture capitalists and wide eyed speculators for their own internal research projects. The same pattern exists for Microsoft around Office and Windows. That being said it does look like both Google and Microsoft have slowed down a bit from where they were several years ago on big-R R&D. 

     

    I think it's a healthy sign when companies that can afford to invest in big-R research around consumer focused products continue to do so. There will always be failures that occur when trying to transition research projects into product developments. As Apple Newton showed us, timing is everything. I suppose most research projects die in the labs and never see the light of day, Some simply increase a company's patent arsenal. Some may be resurrected a decade later or more and result in insanely successful products. Some, like lasers at the time of invention, are solutions waiting for problems that take decades to arrive. 

     

    The unique thing about Google is that their main source of revenue is simply a huge pipe constantly spewing money. There are not a ton of offshoots of ad selling and click counting and search technology that will lead to derivative business opportunities for Google. Sure, they've invented a lot of unique technology at the infrastructure level to support their ginormous cash cow and keep it growing. But basically they're just dealing with a huge pile of cash and they are trying to use that cash to create other future looking businesses opportunities. Search and ads simply pays the bills.

  • Reply 57 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    And in other news, Samsung just hired the head of Tangerine, a design consultancy. Jony Ive was the 3rd partner in that firm before he was hired by Apple.



    And in even later news, Samsung hired his old boss at The Sun's head of residential distribution since Tony was quite a paper delivery boy early on. /s

  • Reply 58 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anome View Post



    Maybe they'll be able to come up with some uses for Google Glass, finally.


    This coincides with Glass 2 slated for release this year. Hopefully Google won't be so public with the development as they have been and take a cue from the way Apple is developing their watch: Behind closed doors with only limited details released as they are needed.

    http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/wearable-tech/3589338/google-glass-2-release-date-price-specs/



    The assignment of Mr Fadell can be chalked up to Google moving Glass out of the xLabs and into a stand-alone project.



    According to a Google spoke person there's no change in the day-to-day operation will be continue to be run by Ivy Ross with Fadell taking control of the overall vision (pun intended image ) Google will not become part of Nest nor is Fadell giving up his responsibilities there.



    Word on the street is it will be called Sergey's Sapphire and that they have a source for the large amount of sapphire they will need for the lens (bolh glasses an cameras) - the supplier is located in Arizona and the Google is said to be paying upwards of $2 billion for the company to provide them with product exclusively plus cost of lens although they will not be actually be purchasing the company. I would expect then to deliver a free developers kit with the SS an the dev con. /s

  • Reply 59 of 63
    nick29 wrote: »
    Hey at least they tried something different, didn't add up though. Interesting to compare Google Glass vs the Apple Watch as the two most notable wearables these past two years. The latter hasn't even been released but its virtually guaranteed to sell a 100 million units, even in a worst-case scenario.

    I think you meant 1 million units.

    At last, Google have had the good sense to put Google Glass to bed.

    Now it's Apple's turn to draw a veil over the ill-fated Apple Watch.

    Wearables are one giant niche that's not worth Apple's time. The best thing they can do is hold their hands up and say, "Sorry, folks; we erred with the Apple Watch, but thank you for your interest."

    And bring back the 4" iPhone.
  • Reply 60 of 63
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member

    I find it fucking disgusting how Google spent years attempting to normalize Google Glass through a massive PR campaign, and mocked/attacked anyone who had concerns about it as being somehow against technology, and progress, or a hypocrite because they used a cell phone, or just plain backwards and ignorant. After all that hyping, Google didn't even have the guts to launch the product in any meaningful way, instead choosing to silently put their beta model on sale. It's easy to hype products as the best thing ever, when you don't even take the risk and commit to a meaningful launch. When Apple launches a new product, it has already manufactured millions upon millions and committed 100% before getting an ounce of feedback from consumers. That's called believing in your product, the opposite of "beta testing" garbage (pricey garbage) and keeping all the options open in terms of commitment, all the while pretending that it's the best thing ever, touting your own innovation, and mocking other companies for not having something similar. No doubt Apple has the same kinds of concepts in its labs, but its not stupid enough to think this is feasible to launch yet. 

Sign In or Register to comment.