6 ms·

interesting that a lot of people don't get why this is bad news. it is all about expectations, this is still about a product that google wants to make money of

interesting that a lot of people don't get why this is bad news. it is all about expectations, this is still about a product that google wants to make money of. this video now tickles the fancy of nerds all around. read the comments and you see things like 'all it needs is a direct to brain interface' or 'i will buy all iterations of it'. the problem being that google will not be able to deliver on this concept video, not for the first iterations at least. just look at how long it took for the iphone to reach its current state, with apps, etc. the iphone launch is the perfect counter-example to concept videos. do not build expectations by releasing concept videos, do not build up false expectations full stop. release and proclaim this. is. it. then see how you build upon that. even apple stumbles, siri being a case in point of reality not matching the aspirations. nothing worse than releasing a great product that just sucks in comparison to the grand concept videos that didn't have to take into account things like battery life, difficult background/lighting situations, safety rules, etc. concept videos take up energy you should spend on the actual product, the one people will actually need to pay money for.

ArekDymalski 15y ago
On the other hand it's good to check if really there are any people who would pay for that, before you start building it and spending real resources. This video is just an MVP to check the market and get some press coverage. So, in my opinion it's very good news - Google started to work in more methodological way on new products.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  That doesn't work if you set expectations far beyond what you can deliver, though. You can show that people are interested in flying cars by showing them the Jetsons, but if you can't achieve that in your product, it is useless (perhaps even damaging) information. On the other hand, if Google knows they can achieve what they show, then it's a good strategy. But if they don't have the tech in hand and just "think" they can achieve it, things won't go well. At best, they'll release a product everybody thinks is subpar. At worst, they'll never release as they keep trying to reach the goal they set for themselves.
Tichy 15y ago
On the other hand, the latest mantra of the startup world is to build MVPs and iterate quickly. What is wrong with getting the conversation started? Is it wrong to write science fiction novels, for example? I for one enjoy reading science fiction. The one thing that bothers me about the video is that it seems rather unoriginal. The thing you'll do with these glasses is check in at your coffee dealer?
- irollboozers 15y ago
  Exactly. The startup method of MVPs is not universally true for all creators and visionaries. It's just more true for readers on HN because we tend to have limited resources. Compared to say, Google.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    If I had a huge company, I would probably try to operate the departments like little startups. It is probably really hard to avoid the drudgery of bureaucracy and whatnot in big companies. Having more resources could be a curse. Therefore I think MVP might have merit even for large corporations. Also, studies seem to show again and again that nobody can predict the future success of a product, which would speak in favor of MVPs even for big corps.
    - ArekDymalski 15y ago
      Exactly. Having more resources and more experience doesn't mean that the company can't use Lean methodologies. It actually should to avoid waste and false/overrated convictions about self. And especially in case of very fresh products like these Glasses.
    - andrewmu 15y ago
      I like the idea of small departments without too many procedural overheads, although a couple of difficulties may be that: 1. larger companies may be nervous of iterating in public because failures/quality problems could look embarrassing / damage the brand 2. early releases or beta tests can signal to competitors that the company has intentions in an area.
tomkin 15y ago
We seem to be making one conversation out of 2 points. Point one: The video is nonsense, Point two: Will Glass be successful? Video: I agree that it should have been anchored to current reality, like the Google Plus and self-driving car videos were. But I don't think the video itself was a bad play. RIM/Blackberry released a future-world video back in October (seems to be unavailable now) that had many far away ideas. Gruber criticized it, of course, but I feel like he was right – because in RIM's budget there was no allocation for these imaginary products. Google is actually creating these devices. Glass: As for the hokeyness of having an extra band over your face – technology tends to bend to the habits of our lifestyle. This is what makes being an inventor/entrepreneur frustrating – watching others create applications or devices that people just won't rewrite their whole way of life to use. Seeing people passionately build devices you know have no chance – because they ask the user to change their habits – is cringe inducing. So I get why people might get a bit of that feeling from this device, because I feel it too. On the other hand, humans love incentives and if this device ramps up productivity by doing many of the operations shown in the video (albeit, less fluid) it might be a sell. If you can get people to wear a Bluetooth device in their ear all day, this might be a slight extension of that.
antihero 15y ago
Sales vs R&D battle?
borlak 15y ago
Google's video reminded me of Microsoft Surface. I thought MS's video was crap, and Google's is no better.

ArekDymalski 15y ago

On the other hand it's good to check if really there are any people who would pay for that, before you start building it and spending real resources. This video is just an MVP to check the market and get some press coverage. So, in my opinion it's very good news - Google started to work in more methodological way on new products.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
That doesn't work if you set expectations far beyond what you can deliver, though. You can show that people are interested in flying cars by showing them the Jetsons, but if you can't achieve that in your product, it is useless (perhaps even damaging) information. On the other hand, if Google knows they can achieve what they show, then it's a good strategy. But if they don't have the tech in hand and just "think" they can achieve it, things won't go well. At best, they'll release a product everybody thinks is subpar. At worst, they'll never release as they keep trying to reach the goal they set for themselves.

Tichy 15y ago

On the other hand, the latest mantra of the startup world is to build MVPs and iterate quickly. What is wrong with getting the conversation started? Is it wrong to write science fiction novels, for example? I for one enjoy reading science fiction. The one thing that bothers me about the video is that it seems rather unoriginal. The thing you'll do with these glasses is check in at your coffee dealer?

irollboozers 15y ago
Exactly. The startup method of MVPs is not universally true for all creators and visionaries. It's just more true for readers on HN because we tend to have limited resources. Compared to say, Google.
- Tichy 15y ago
  If I had a huge company, I would probably try to operate the departments like little startups. It is probably really hard to avoid the drudgery of bureaucracy and whatnot in big companies. Having more resources could be a curse. Therefore I think MVP might have merit even for large corporations. Also, studies seem to show again and again that nobody can predict the future success of a product, which would speak in favor of MVPs even for big corps.
  - ArekDymalski 15y ago
    Exactly. Having more resources and more experience doesn't mean that the company can't use Lean methodologies. It actually should to avoid waste and false/overrated convictions about self. And especially in case of very fresh products like these Glasses.
  - andrewmu 15y ago
    I like the idea of small departments without too many procedural overheads, although a couple of difficulties may be that: 1. larger companies may be nervous of iterating in public because failures/quality problems could look embarrassing / damage the brand 2. early releases or beta tests can signal to competitors that the company has intentions in an area.

tomkin 15y ago

We seem to be making one conversation out of 2 points. Point one: The video is nonsense, Point two: Will Glass be successful? Video: I agree that it should have been anchored to current reality, like the Google Plus and self-driving car videos were. But I don't think the video itself was a bad play. RIM/Blackberry released a future-world video back in October (seems to be unavailable now) that had many far away ideas. Gruber criticized it, of course, but I feel like he was right – because in RIM's budget there was no allocation for these imaginary products. Google is actually creating these devices. Glass: As for the hokeyness of having an extra band over your face – technology tends to bend to the habits of our lifestyle. This is what makes being an inventor/entrepreneur frustrating – watching others create applications or devices that people just won't rewrite their whole way of life to use. Seeing people passionately build devices you know have no chance – because they ask the user to change their habits – is cringe inducing. So I get why people might get a bit of that feeling from this device, because I feel it too. On the other hand, humans love incentives and if this device ramps up productivity by doing many of the operations shown in the video (albeit, less fluid) it might be a sell. If you can get people to wear a Bluetooth device in their ear all day, this might be a slight extension of that.

antihero 15y ago

Sales vs R&D battle?

borlak 15y ago

Google's video reminded me of Microsoft Surface. I thought MS's video was crap, and Google's is no better.