Slashdot Mirror
"Google Glass Isn't Dead!" Says Google's CEO Eric Schmidt
lord_rob the only on writes "After Google stopped selling its wearable Glass device in January this year, many people speculated that the controversial gadget was on its way out for good. However, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt has said that the technology behind Glass is too important to throw away, and that the program has been put under the control of Nest's Tony Fadell to "make it ready for users" in the future.
FTFA: "Erich[sic] Schmidt has said that the technology behind Glass is too important to throw away [...]"
To whom? Clearly not to the users that don't want to spend $1500 on a pair of birth control goggles.
People where hostile to people with Cell phones in the 1980's, In college back in my day, if a student went to class with a Laptop we were hostile towards them. Portable technology takes a while to get into the culture.
Google keeps telling us what the future is going to be ... the problem is that future is designed to profit Google. Well Duh! Google isn't going to try to push a product that will put them out of business?
In general Google Glass may or may not make it. However its failure doesn't mean the end. The Apple Newton failed too, from its experience and lessons learned it became the iPhone, and iPad.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Ex-CEO, sure. But who cares about details/nuances? This is /. afterall.
" It just so happens that google glasses here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do..."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Actually, for me it's the general problem of futurists ... they're usually pie-in-the-sky out of touch with reality.
And since they're chomping at the bit proponents of a technology, they keep telling us how it will be inevitable we all have this stuff.
The vast majority of this stuff is just wishful thinking ... like flying cars and Mr. Fusion ... both of which have been coming Real Soon Now for decades.
So when I hear the CEO of a technology company telling us what the wonderful future will be ... I'm generally forced to conclude this is the deluded ramblings of the CEO of a technology company.
Many years in the tech industry tells me the prognostications of tech CEOs are about as useful as augury with chicken innards, only slightly less entertaining.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The Apple Newton actually became the Palm Pilot, which was very successful. Its success wasn't based on the public's lack of hostility toward it. It was just more refined, and better developed. In short, it was simply a better product that was more reliable (and more affordable).
The iPhone and iPad came much later and were developed independently from the Newton.
It really isn't just a "matter of time" issue. Bluetooth earpieces are still largely frowned upon in public because, despite being a convenient technology and the wide range of visual profiles available, they project a wide radius of social awkwardness. I think Google Glass simply ran into the same issue, which is to say the problem isn't so much with Google's particular implementation but with the very nature of how the technology is perceived. That challenge is far more difficult to overcome than just slimming it down or offering it in different colors until people like it.