Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Technology

"Google Glass Isn't Dead!" Says Google's CEO Eric Schmidt 141

Posted by samzenpus from the I'm-getting-better dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Google Glass Isn't Dead!" Says Google's CEO Eric Schmidt More

"Google Glass Isn't Dead!" Says Google's CEO Eric Schmidt

Comments Filter:

  • Whatever ... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 )

    So they have put it in charge of the guy from Nest, who pretty much is running the ship in such a way as to guarantee Google gets analytics about your household.

    Sorry, Eric ... but maybe people simply don't give a crap about this stuff, and they'll continue to be hostile to the people around them who wear them.

    Google keeps telling us what the future is going to be ... the problem is that future is designed to profit Google.

    Sorry, but no. Keep telling us how these technologies will revolutionize the world.

    • Re:Whatever ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @11:40AM (#49321333)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Why would you want an advertising company whose only business is to gather your personal information to succeed? Unless you are a shareholder or an employee, its a good idea to stay away from most Google offerings - or atleast, ones that only take 'payment' in terms of your personal data.

      • Re:Whatever ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @12:07PM (#49321577) Homepage

        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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tmosley ( 996283 )
          To be fair, we'd have had flying cars 40+ years ago but for the FAA.

          • Honestly though, the average driver seems to barely be able to navigate in two dimensions.

            You think most drivers could qualify for a pilots license?

            I sure as hell don't. Because that's pretty much what they'd need.

            I think preventing that is a good thing. Hell, I see people who can't understand what the lane markings and the stop signs mean.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tmosley ( 996283 )
              Then stop complaining about not having fucking flying cars like it is some kind of failure of technology.

              Also, why are you not in favor of even letting people TRY!? These projects have all been shut down in their infancy, with projects by major players being total non-starters. VTOL means that the entire process could have been AUTOMATED with 90's era tech.

          • I'm thankful for that. The failure mode of most mechanical problems with an average car is that it gently rolls to the side of the road. The failure mode of most mechanical problems with an average light aircraft is plummeting to death, and likely destroying something below you in the process.

            Think of all the nitwits you see on the freeway, and then imagine them with hands on stick in a Cessna. No, thanks.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mjwx ( 966435 )

              I'm thankful for that. The failure mode of most mechanical problems with an average car is that it gently rolls to the side of the road. The failure mode of most mechanical problems with an average light aircraft is plummeting to death, and likely destroying something below you in the process.

              Think of all the nitwits you see on the freeway, and then imagine them with hands on stick in a Cessna. No, thanks.

              The mechanical failure mode of a light aircraft is to turn it into a glider. But you have a point in that your average moron would probably screw it up.

              I mean they cant even concentrate on a simple task like driving without complaining that its too boring and playing with their phone.

              The mechanical failure mode of a jet liner is plummet to the ground, this is why they have multiple redundant systems and see more mechanics in a week than cars will see in their lifetime.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            Probably not. We'd have a few stories about how 40 years ago the flying car was banned to unanimous approval after a few notable incidents of 'motorists' crashing into schools and such.

        • I've always wondered where Mr. Fusion's boiler and turbine were.

      • You don't know your history... (Score:5, Informative)

        by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @12:20PM (#49321751)
        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.

        • Very true. I was one of the Palm early adopters and got IPO shares. Made a killing from that.

          Will we find the concept from the Google Glass migrating to contact lens bio-powered camera devices that one has to wear a headband that pulses red (or more likely blue, since many men are color blind)?

          Yes.

          Will Google Glass die?

          Yes.

          Are you still using your old Palm or Rio MP3 Blue Crystal devices?

          Gosh, I hope not.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Good point. Also, nobody hated the Newton. Its problem was just that very few people saw any use for it. A situation made worse by its shortcomings, it really was a product before its time.

          On the other hand, people actually hate Google Glass. It's not a "before its time" product unless our future selves learn to love the creepy Google panopticon.

        • The Apple Newton actually became the Palm Pilot, which was very successful.

          What? No, it didn't. One of the Palm Pilot's creators did come from Apple, but they didn't bring the Newton with them. The Palm Pilot was actually a competitor to the Newton, and not the only pen-based contemporary either, though it was the only one in the same size class. The Zoomer actually became the Palm Pilot; the Graffiti handwriting recognition system was first developed for this PC-GEOS-based, paperback-sized handheld.

          The iPhone and iPad came much later and were developed independently from the Newton.

          Uh yeah, so was the Palm Pilot. You don't know your history.

      • The Apple Newton failed too, from its experience and lessons learned it became the iPhone, and iPad.

        I think the primary lesson learned from the Apple Newton was that Steve Jobs should replace John Sculley. If so, I guess your assessment of its relation to the iPhone and iPad is correct.

      • Re:Whatever ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TraumaFox ( 1667643 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @12:46PM (#49322041)
        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.

      • It's also illegal in Washington State to record people. And we're not the only state with privacy rights and anti-upskirt laws.

        Which have been upheld in US Supreme Court.

      • 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.

        Walkman's and portable CD players too... However the feeling was less about the technology or being portable (or new), and more about the price tag and what it was perceived to say about the owner. People walking about with expensive portable technology were classed alongside those walking

      • People where hostile to people with Cell phones in the 1980's

        And today there are quiet carriages on trains, coffee shops with no-phones policies, and generally if you're the guy who talks really loud on the phone then everyone around you still gets annoyed and may actually challenge you if you carry on for long.

        And that's for a device that is just an interruption, not a device that a lot of people perceive to be an inherently creepy invasion of their privacy literally because someone just looked at them funny.

        In general Google Glass may or may not make it.

        I expect technology similar to Google Glass will make it,

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by kaiidth ( 104315 )

          For example, someone walking around a museum might borrow some sort of headset that guides them on a tour and provides background information about each exhibit they are looking at.

          We've been able to do that for a very long time. Typically we do it by 'punch the number into the keypad' technology (admittedly not a very high tech solution but it works and unlike naive location-based technologies it lets users decide for themselves when they're fed up of the current spiel and want to move on). In the early '

          • It seems like we probably agree on the general idea here, but I was impressed on a recent visit to a museum where they had mobile apps you could download in advance and WiFi available on-site. Together these let you choose from a number of recommended tours based on duration and topic(s) and then guided you around with directions, highlights, and more in-depth background on various other exhibits you'd pass along the way if you were interested. It was a well made presentation that someone had obviously work

      • For the history to shed any light we'd need to know why cell phone, laptop earlier adopeters were given a hard time. I don't remember cell phone ealier adopters getting grief and cant speak to laptops in classrooms but that's just me. Seriouse question: what technology is being made portable with these glasses because I am at a loss?
      • One reason we aren't using NeXT-branded systems today is that Jobs wouldn't sell them. Remember "Enroll."? The only reason the DW didn't die completely is Jobs' return to Apple. Google wouldn't sell Glass. Pretention rarely makes for a successfully product.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Quick Question: If I put on my Google Glass and stare at my Nest thermostat, what ads will I see?

    • People have been hostile to nerds and geeks since early childhood. I wonder if these efforts will have any further effect. I personally would wear google glass just because it annoys idiot hipsters.

    • be hostile to the people around them who wear them.

      I agree, at least to the degree that they're "obvious"... ie, the HUD/glasses form factor is the culprit. You look like a Borg, it's kinda creepy, etc.. But to me the most attractive aspect of G/Glass was simply its ability to record my movements throughout the day, like a policeman's lapel-cam. At the end of the day, I could save a few highlights, and clear the buffer, like a diary.

      As for the HUD display, augmented reality is overrated, If I need "augmented" info in real time like that, I'll get an iWatch

    • So they have put it in charge of the guy from Nest, who pretty much is running the ship in such a way as to guarantee Google gets analytics about your household.

      If they only wanted that, then the best thing they could do is get that household info from Acxiom [acxiom.com] ...they've been gathering that data on you for decades now. Not bad from a little company that came out of Conway, AR. I think they're still pretty much the definitive source of household (and a lot of other ) info in the US/World.

    • Google keeps telling us what the future is going to be ... the problem is that future is designed to profit Google.

      really? i thought they were just a bunch of nice guys that like spending billions of dollars on R&D out of the goodness of their hearts?

      really, really sick of folks treating the rest of us like we're idiots. we ALL KNOW that google uses analytics and customer data to earn a profit. we get it, we fully understand. you're not dropping some massive bomb of reality on us shattering our view of the world.

      most of the world is okay with it. getting some targeted ads is a damn small price to pay for the massive

  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

  • Important? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Primate Pete ( 2773471 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @11:38AM (#49321303)
    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.

    • The 1500 dollar price tag was for a low volume unpolished prototype, given to people already vested in the concept (vested enough to she'll or that kind of money). The world has not yet seen the consumer version aesthetics or price point

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Holi ( 250190 )
        Considering they have had it in developers hands for 2 years with a consumer version no where in sight I'd say it was a pretty spectacular failure. Not only did the product go nowhere, it gave Google a PR black eye especially with some of their "ambassadors". [dailymail.co.uk]
    • It will take root in professional services (surgeons, architects, etc...) and if it never makes it into the consumer market for one reason or another (say privacy concerns) it matters not. Google glasses (or some variant) has it use and will remain.

    • To whom? Clearly not to the users that don't want to spend $1500 on a pair of birth control goggles.

      Cheaper than a vasectomy and you can watch Star Trek on it. In a future version might even be able to do an augmented reality of the bridge of the Enterprise, with that you really can make women obsolete. All you need is the soothing voice of the Enterprise computer.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by EStrat ( 174854 )

      I'll just go on record here -- I never said that.
      Erich[sic] Schmidt

  • CEO != Executive Chairman (Score:5, Informative)

    by non0score ( 890022 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @11:44AM (#49321369)
    Ex-CEO, sure. But who cares about details/nuances? This is /. afterall.

    • Yeah, I was going to say, since when is he the CEO again? He vacated the position years ago to let Larry Page handle it. But details. Such difficult.

  • quoting the immortal words of Miracle Max... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lead Butthead ( 321013 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @11:45AM (#49321379) Journal

    " 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..."

  • So. Zombies with Google Glass? (Score:3)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @11:50AM (#49321417) Homepage Journal

    [Zombie] Rrrh! Brains...

    [Trapped victim] AGH! I'm DOOMED!

    *VOOP!*

    [Zombie] DAMN! My Google Glass ran the battery down again! Now how am I supposed to document my brain feastage!

    [Trapped Victim] ???

    [Zombie] Oh just get out dammit! I'll shuffle you down NEXT TIME! Damn tech! I can operate with a six inch hole in my chest! *Waggles a hand in the hole* And this thing can't even record a decently long chase-down and brain feast! Shoulda bought a damn GoPro!

  • Still waiting for the first google-glass-related homicide.

    The one that starts with "Did you just take a video of my kid?"

    • Not sure about a homicide, but there have been plenty of instances of people being accosted for using cameras or smartphones to take photos of kids. In many of these instances, the people accused were actually the fathers of the kids in question, but the accusers assumed the worst because Male Taking Photo Of Child = Pervert but Female Taking Photo Of Child = Loving Mother.

      • Not sure about a homicide, but there have been plenty of instances of people being accosted for using cameras or smartphones to take photos of kids. In many of these instances, the people accused were actually the fathers of the kids in question, but the accusers assumed the worst because Male Taking Photo Of Child = Pervert but Female Taking Photo Of Child = Loving Mother.

        Wow, this is like the 3rd reference I've seen of this on this thread.

        Is this something people are truly uptight about out there? Peopl

        • I've never personally worried about people taking pictures of my kids but I'm a little self-conscious when I bring my DSLR to the park to take pictures of them playing for the grandparents -- like, if there are other kids there with their parents I try to not use the camera. When the MPs roll by on their routine patrols I always half-wonder if they're going to stop and ask me (an almost-middle-aged male) what I'm doing with kids and a camera.

          I'm not sure where my caution comes from, I think it may be jus

  • [Zombie] Rrrh. Brains. Rrrh. Brains.

    [Cornered Victim] Ah! I'm doomed!

    *VEEOOOP!*

    [Zombie] Ah dammit! The battery just ran down again! What the fuck? I was just getting to the good part!

    [Cornered Victim] Uh. I'm... Doomed?

    [Zombie] Oh put a sock in it! Just...just...get out! I'll shuffle you down LATER! Goddamn Glass! I can operate with this six inch hole clear through my torso! *Waggles hand in the hole* And this thing can't last long enough to record a chase and a bit of brain feast! I shoulda

  • Proving that just because you can write bangup search engine software, doesn't mean you understand how embedded development works...

    Honestly, I think the Thermostat was just a lucky fluke. Witness the engineering prowess of Nest [youtube.com] in their smoke alarms.
  • for the fjo... I mean the millionaire hipsters!

  • Still waiting for the first homicide that starts with : "Did you just take a video of my kid?"

  • Google Glass was a success (Score:3)

    by jetkust ( 596906 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @11:59AM (#49321505)
    Google Glass (at it's current state) was never meant to blow up in popularity when it was released. It was to be the first, and to establish a brand. Augmented reality is the future. The race to lead the market has begun. To say they are "giving up on google glass" is like saying they are "giving up on augmented reality" which is just dumb.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by moeinvt ( 851793 )

      Agreed. People already move about the world completely immersed in what's happening on their smart phones. The fact that you need a certain screen size to have a usable interface and enjoyable experience puts a serious limit on the evolution of that technology. I think there's also going to be a saturation point in the app space when the "cool" has worn off. Something like Google Glass has got to be the next logical extension.

  • Proving that just because you can write bangup search engine software, doesn't mean you understand how embedded development works...

    Honestly, I think the Thermostat was just a lucky fluke. Witness the engineering prowess of Nest [youtube.com] in their smoke alarms.
  • Will the zombie Glassholes be a kinder, gentler bunch?

  • I'm sure Tony will get right on that "Why the fuck should I let you record me" thing. I'm sure he'll be on that right after the "nerdy creep" thing.

  • Someone else will have to do a Google Glass version of the dead parrot sketch.

  • "[It's] like saying the self-driving car is a disappointment because it’s not driving me around now," said Schmidt.

    I think it's more like saying the self-driving car is a disappointment because it repeatedly ran over my neighbor.

    • I didn't mind the self-driving car running over my neighbor, but having it run over cats, dogs, and small children on skateboards and darting out from bushes does increase the amount one has to spend on car washes.

  • It's over.

    Just give it up, Glassh0135.

  • It's pining for the fjords!
  • Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
  • Perhaps the initial design problem of Google Glass is that they did not pay attention to what someone like Beats would do. Beats design cheerfully uses color and is not necessarily minimalistic. It says the user of proud of who he or she is, deal with it. The minimalistic mostly-colorless initial design actually invited attacks because it was sending a message of doubt and fear, trying to hide what could not be hidden.

    Perhaps this is a lesson in the importance of diversity for the bottom-line.

  • Further (Score:3)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Monday March 23, 2015 @03:17PM (#49323047) Homepage Journal

    Schmidt also indicated that Google glass feels happy and feels like dancing.

  • It's always smelled like that.

  • Deliver to everyone with all the original features, including face recognition, and let the chips fall where they may.

    As for the hate, thank Google's broken dependence invite system. That needs to be forced out of Google by some means.

  • just resting.

  • I do not agree with this man, because it is awful, when you look at a person, who has google glasses!
  • we never said it was stupid. Although, some of us might have said, "It's poorly thought-out, and makes people look fucking ridiculous." maybe that's what you meant?
  • I thought Google were refocusing Glass towards professional markets (it has a foothold in some medical and engineering places, where the price tag and style are less of an issue). So consumer Glass is on hold; pro Glass is moving forward nicely.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close