4 ms·

> The initial version of Glass . . . sold for $1,500. . . Google stopped selling it in January and executives have admitted that the device was released before

> The initial version of Glass . . . sold for $1,500. . . Google stopped selling it in January and executives have admitted that the device was released before it was ready for consumers. No shit. It was $1500 _because_ it was not ready for consumers, and they wanted to price it high enough so people who had no business buying one didn't.

EdwardDiego 11y ago
> they wanted to price it high enough so people who had no business buying one didn't. All they did with the high pricing was make it a prestige item, like Singapore's car licensing costs - they've made driving a car far more of a prestige thing.
- derefr 11y ago
  Maybe they should have just done what game console manufacturers have done lately (in the name of "opening up their hardware" beyond AAA publishers), and required sending them a set of CV-like details proving you're the kind of person who tinkers with graphics tech for a living, not affiliated with any news organizations or with their competitors. Like this: https://wiiu-developers.nintendo.com/signup/ https://wiiu-developers.nintendo.com/signup/
  - bsimpson 11y ago
    I think it was like that when they started, but it became more lax over time as the demand pent up.
yeukhon 11y ago
To be fair yes $1500 plus an invite-only is a crazy idea to me. When was the last product ever gained fame in short-period of time with a beta invite? Gmail is probably the first and the last. Apple products are expensive. Many high-end Android smartphones are expensive if you are not on a new contract or renewing contract, yet there are still plenty of customers. What makes Glass a failure is that there weren't a lot of engagement but full of negatives coming from different corners of the world. To me there was not enough commercial. Even Apple Watch is an expensive wasteful to me but still a lot of sales (definitely much less compare to iPhones). Battery life, apps, convenience were all mediocre. I will almost compare Glass to FireFox OS phones where there was noise, but the product couldn't compete with mainstream product (yes that was the initial market, but still). You can't just force to create a market by creating something cheap because when it breaks, people will rather pay 10x more for something more durable, reliable, and more fun to use. Glass was the first in this market and yet GG manages to pull a wall in between users and the product. By the way, it was very easy to get an invite, but each invite takes 3-6 months to go through. With the amount of money GG has, GG can easily roll out in the entire US market quickly. I am sure me being me, I don't have years of marketing experience, I am sure GG folks know what they were doing, but from a common man perspective, at least me, I would do it differently.
jimrandomh 11y ago
They were somewhat unclear in their messaging, but I (and others) interpreted the price as signalling that it was aimed at developers, in advance of a broader rollout. But it wasn't, and their stance towards outside developers turned out to be much less friendly than expected.

EdwardDiego 11y ago

> they wanted to price it high enough so people who had no business buying one didn't. All they did with the high pricing was make it a prestige item, like Singapore's car licensing costs - they've made driving a car far more of a prestige thing.

derefr 11y ago
Maybe they should have just done what game console manufacturers have done lately (in the name of "opening up their hardware" beyond AAA publishers), and required sending them a set of CV-like details proving you're the kind of person who tinkers with graphics tech for a living, not affiliated with any news organizations or with their competitors. Like this: https://wiiu-developers.nintendo.com/signup/ https://wiiu-developers.nintendo.com/signup/
- bsimpson 11y ago
  I think it was like that when they started, but it became more lax over time as the demand pent up.

yeukhon 11y ago

To be fair yes $1500 plus an invite-only is a crazy idea to me. When was the last product ever gained fame in short-period of time with a beta invite? Gmail is probably the first and the last. Apple products are expensive. Many high-end Android smartphones are expensive if you are not on a new contract or renewing contract, yet there are still plenty of customers. What makes Glass a failure is that there weren't a lot of engagement but full of negatives coming from different corners of the world. To me there was not enough commercial. Even Apple Watch is an expensive wasteful to me but still a lot of sales (definitely much less compare to iPhones). Battery life, apps, convenience were all mediocre. I will almost compare Glass to FireFox OS phones where there was noise, but the product couldn't compete with mainstream product (yes that was the initial market, but still). You can't just force to create a market by creating something cheap because when it breaks, people will rather pay 10x more for something more durable, reliable, and more fun to use. Glass was the first in this market and yet GG manages to pull a wall in between users and the product. By the way, it was very easy to get an invite, but each invite takes 3-6 months to go through. With the amount of money GG has, GG can easily roll out in the entire US market quickly. I am sure me being me, I don't have years of marketing experience, I am sure GG folks know what they were doing, but from a common man perspective, at least me, I would do it differently.

jimrandomh 11y ago

They were somewhat unclear in their messaging, but I (and others) interpreted the price as signalling that it was aimed at developers, in advance of a broader rollout. But it wasn't, and their stance towards outside developers turned out to be much less friendly than expected.