3 ms·

>One of the unique things we are doing with Glass ... is that we are having this discussion very publicly. We, as a company, could very easily have taken this t

>One of the unique things we are doing with Glass ... is that we are having this discussion very publicly. We, as a company, could very easily have taken this technology into a conference room, wrapped the conference room in tin foil and developed this over the course of two to three years and released it en masse and basically said, "You know what? Deal with it. The technology is ready, and here it is." Wow. Just wow. The arrogance displayed here is staggering, to the point that it erodes my confidence that Glass will see much success. (I didn't have much confidence in it to begin with.) You can tell the possibility that Glass might just simply not catch on, hasn't so much as drifted into his conscious awareness. The idea that Google is doing everyone a favor with the Explorers program, so that everyone can get used to it, as opposed to doing this for the usual reason of not releasing a shitty product, appears to be something this guy actually believes. I've heard that Google selects for arrogance to some degree in their hiring practices. Perhaps it's time to rethink that.

fpgeek 12y ago
The rest of that response is: "What we decided to do instead was have a living laboratory for a very public experiment. Is it messy? Sure. And are there are things that you couldn't predict? Absolutely. But there is all of this feedback that you get from these Explorers and these use cases. We cannot only bake the feedback into the product, but bake it into our policies." I just can't square that with your interpretation. It's very clear he thinks that Google is running the Explorer program for the feedback they're getting, so they can use it to improve their product. Moreover, making a point of incorporating that feedback into their policies rather than just their product demonstrates that Google's position isn't anywhere near telling people to "get used to it". Which shouldn't be surprising - telling people to "Deal with it" was part of his description of the path they didn't follow.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
andrewflnr 12y ago
Dealing with the public feedback is part of not releasing a shitty product, and that's a good thing for everyone. You make it sound like the Explorer program can only have one reason, public acclimation or design refinement, but not both, which is obviously nonsense. Overall, I see nothing to justify the cynical interpretation you've put forward here. Further, your last paragraph defies belief. When I interned at Google, almost everyone I met seemed down-to-earth and humble, and I've never heard anything like your accusation. Citation is desperately needed.
cma 12y ago
This is a major reading comprehension fail on your part.
- deciplex 12y ago
  I don't think that it is, but rather that I didn't give the guy the benefit of doubt, and as someone else said my reading of it was overly cynical which I agree with. I still think he worded it poorly. To me, it sounded like he was suggesting that was an alternate, even equally viable, strategy for developing the product, and that it was the goodwill of his team and Google that led them to do the Explorer program. But, I don't think that's the case anymore.

fpgeek 12y ago

The rest of that response is: "What we decided to do instead was have a living laboratory for a very public experiment. Is it messy? Sure. And are there are things that you couldn't predict? Absolutely. But there is all of this feedback that you get from these Explorers and these use cases. We cannot only bake the feedback into the product, but bake it into our policies." I just can't square that with your interpretation. It's very clear he thinks that Google is running the Explorer program for the feedback they're getting, so they can use it to improve their product. Moreover, making a point of incorporating that feedback into their policies rather than just their product demonstrates that Google's position isn't anywhere near telling people to "get used to it". Which shouldn't be surprising - telling people to "Deal with it" was part of his description of the path they didn't follow.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

andrewflnr 12y ago

Dealing with the public feedback is part of not releasing a shitty product, and that's a good thing for everyone. You make it sound like the Explorer program can only have one reason, public acclimation or design refinement, but not both, which is obviously nonsense. Overall, I see nothing to justify the cynical interpretation you've put forward here. Further, your last paragraph defies belief. When I interned at Google, almost everyone I met seemed down-to-earth and humble, and I've never heard anything like your accusation. Citation is desperately needed.

cma 12y ago

This is a major reading comprehension fail on your part.

deciplex 12y ago
I don't think that it is, but rather that I didn't give the guy the benefit of doubt, and as someone else said my reading of it was overly cynical which I agree with. I still think he worded it poorly. To me, it sounded like he was suggesting that was an alternate, even equally viable, strategy for developing the product, and that it was the goodwill of his team and Google that led them to do the Explorer program. But, I don't think that's the case anymore.