It didn’t take Scoble for me to know Google Glass is weird and creepy.
It didn’t take Google Glass for me to know Scoble is weird and creepy.
It’s the commutative property of weird and creepy.
It took me to become weird and creepy to even know who Scoble is or visit this blowhard’s website.
and now I feel less weird and creepy after reading this thread!!
All this weirdness is creeping me out.
Probably not, but be honest–Scoble was just the guarantee that it certainly was as weird and creepy as you thought.
I think Scoble should wear them while on a Segway wearing a pocket protector…
In a shower perhaps?
While using an Apple Newton and a Palm Folio
To play a little Devil’s advocate here, Scoble did write up a review about Glass that was separate from the whole shower incident. It was actually pretty decent. The reality is, Robert has always craved attention and he got exactly what he wanted. With that said, “the masses” have no freakin’ clue who Robert is, and never will. If Google Glass fails, it’ll be because people aren’t ready for the technology, whether that has to do with privacy issues or just getting weird looks in public, similar to talking to Siri or Google Now on your phone in a public place.
That Yoohoo t-shirt is so f’ing cool
Wait, is that a Yoo-hoo tshirt Peter????
And guess if Yoo-hoo was a client at the time? :-)))
You know I love ya but on this one, I respectfully disagree.
One influencer’s review isn’t going to make or break Google Glass and it’s not your early adopter use that did the Segway in. There were lots of factors that doomed the Segway (for now – maybe it was just too early and will make a miraculous comeback).
Geoffrey Moore nailed it. Mass adoption and success in tech products is all about whether the product crosses the chasm from early adopter geeks like you, me and Scoble to soccer moms in Wisconsin. Once a product crosses that chasm, the early adopters (like us) usually aren’t interested in it anymore and we’re on to the next shiny thing.
The magic of products like the iPhone and iPad is that they shattered Geoffrey Moore’s bell curve, crossing the chasm immediately. On Day 1, the early adopters were standing in line for the iPhone but by Month 2, thousands of soccer moms (and soccer dads) also owned one.
Scoble’s gushing review has nothing to do with whether Google Glass crosses the chasm or not, because 99.9% of soccer moms have never heard of him.
Now, when do we get to meet Jessa? 🙂
But the media knows him. And every reporter who couldn’t get their hands on it will quote from him.And soccer moms will read them.
True, he won’t be entirely responsible, but he loves the limelight. One spot on Kimmel and the world will know his opinion and say “I’m not gonna be like that dork.”
I completely agree Peter. A cheap shot from the rooftops. Hopefully he winds up like the exec that cancelled Family Guy. Congrats on the little one. Best to you and yours.
Well…this is just par for the course. Remember he was all over Friendfeed?
(now quietly taking off my Geordi visor and replacing it with sunglasses…)
So, what was your initial motivation to ride that Segway from here to kingdom come and show it off? Attention. Were you as famous are you are now back then? Probably not. However it helped get you where you are today in one way shape or form. Robert is making a first movers mistake but it might actually end up working out for him as it probably did for you. You built a huge following and helped a lot of reporters out. What I want to know is what is Robert going to do with all the attention now to really make a difference in the world.
BTW, Jessa has a pretty cool dad. I would save that picture for her wedding shower one day. Everyone will have a great laugh about the way her daddy “changed the world on a Segway!” Oh the embarrassing moments that poor kid has to put up with in the future. She’ll love you because you weren’t afraid. Trust me, I’ve got 2 teenage girls.
Google Glass solves zero consumer problems with any efficiency, has terrible battery life, breaks easily, and creeps out people near it. Not sure it was ever going to take off anyways.
You might be overestimating Scoble’s influence… or clout (yes, with a C). Right now, yes. The image of Google Glass is indivisible from that photo of him in the shower. Too many people saw it and now it’s burned into our collective brains. But you know, if we had been as excited about Google Glass as the small stable of tech bloggers who promised us that Google Glass was the biggest product since the iPhone, we would have thought that photo was hilarious, cute, fun, whatever. We didn’t because we were already not buying the hype. Scoble didn’t ruin Glass for Google. Scoble only validated a gut feeling we already had about the premature rollout of an overpriced and overhyped product that still doesn’t work properly, doesn’t really do anything particularly interesting or novel yet, doesn’t solve a legitimate problem for anyone so far, and has very little point (read: real value) that we can put our finger on.
Glass is a gadget right now. Nothing more. Hell, it isn’t even a gadget yet. It’s a gadget prototype. In a few years, it might be pretty awesome, but right now, it’s not awesome at all and it doesn’t matter how much some tech blogger named Robert Scoble wants us to believe otherwise. When Apple released the iPhone some years ago, they released a finished product. It worked super well. It did really cool stuff. It was truly revolutionary because it was more than just an idea, a concept. It was a realized product that did everything it promised to do. Google Glass isn’t there yet. Scoble hammered that home with his self-inflated and vacuous BS, but the fault wasn’t his. The Google Glass team should have never shipped out prototypes. They jumped the gun. They should have waited.
I still blame you for the segway though. 😉
Listen folks, back up away from the technology itself…look at the behavior instead.
This happened when the VHS was created…but was it only because of a demand for porn?
The world continues to evolve, and there will always be those who enjoy a marriage of sex, music, art, entertainment, events and all geo-located for the user. I believe that Glass should be as unobtrusive as possible and also not make you look like a dork in the process. I wear prescription glasses now…so seeing Glass integrated into normal glasses would be ideal. I don’t think the world wants to know their being recorded or analyzed.
The line is thin, but I’m willing to walk it for the benefits that it represents.
Personally…I can’t wait for Google Glass to come out.
What about the question of cost, i.e., what will joe/jane consumer really be willing to pay for Google Glass once it is broadly available? And what about it being tied to Android only (for now)? I think there are serious hurdles to mass adoption, but early adopters may not be the biggest one.
I’m gonna use it anyway. I know people can use their DSLRs and cameras anywhere but still I use them as and when required. I’m gonna do the same with google glass.
Ok you are right about Glass, Mike Stenger is right about Scoble – great guy – but he isn’t for the masses, and the Newton was very cool, big, but cool. I still have mine.
I disagree. I have been predicting Glass’ downfall since I heard of it. First, people who wear eyeglasses can’t use it – it would be as awkward as wearing 3D glasses (which most people I know who wear glasses, hate!). Second, the list of places where you can’t use it is rapidly growing. Movie theaters, live theaters, most places of work, bars, restaurants, night clubs. The Mayor of Las Vegas says don’t even bother bringing them to his city (knowing two of the top businesses are casino’s and strip clubs, neither of which allows cameras). They will be banned while driving, much like texting. Cities will ban them from their parks (it’s one thing to record your own child, but if a predator could secretly be recording children in the park, that would freak out most parents). Sporting events and music concerts will ban them too. I put this in the same category as Betamax and HD-DVD as technology that will fail.
Banks will certainly not allow them in the premises or even right outside (casing the joint?), museums and galleries holding priceless artwork, federal offices are out too (Timothy McVeigh legacy), powerplants (especially nuclear), schools (need you ask?), airport terminals, any place where someone walking around with a camcorder held in shooting position. And the list just keeps growing.
Or all these organizations will just (eventually, after a whole lot of kicking and screaming) accept and bow to reality?
We have already gone through this with phones. For example music concerts used to make a big deal about no cameras and no phones. Eventually they realized how completely idiotic this was, and now they just accept that part of the experience is going to be half the crowd constantly taking photos and video.
Similarly we’re about halfway through the process of the police (in various jurisdictions) realizing that people ARE going to film them in the course of their duties and their is nothing they can do about it.
If I want to case a bank or museum or whatever, I can pretty much do so today. As an amateur I could probably just sew a pocket inside my shirt holding a phone — put what looks like a button or something in front of where I want the lens to be. If I actually cared about doing the job right, I can probably buy a camera today the size of a tic-tac or so, and mount it on a brooch or whatever.
Sure, you may not like aspects of this world. It really IS the case that what was a joke in American Pie (the whole subplot of trying to capture Nadia naked by webcam) is going to become more and more common as teenage/college boys throughout the world hide micro-cameras in their rooms and in the girls’ locker room. But the general pattern of the past is that these problems are best dealt with through a combination of education, shaming, and law, NOT by pretending that the technology doesn’t exist, will go away, or will not continue to improve.
handleym – “Or all these organizations will just (eventually, after a whole lot of kicking and screaming) accept and bow to reality?”
Most of those places we mentioned do not currently allow recording or cameras. Movies? No. Broadway theaters? No. Casinos? Strip Clubs? No and no. Banks? No. Bars? Typically no. Schools? No. (Many don’t allow cell phones). Work? No. I can’t take pictures at work. Driving? No. Also, Glass will be a relatively stable (that is, no camera shaking) format. Could you hold your arm steady for 90-120 minutes in a movie theater, when secretly trying to record a film? Probably not. Most of those recorded movies are crap. Try recording a movie off cable with your camera phone, with nothing to steady it but the arm of your chair, for 2 hours. But if you can record 90-120 minutes on Glass, all you have to do is keep your head still. When you’re hanging out with friends, would they be comfortable with you taking out your camera and recording the entire night? Probably not.
One advantage – POV amateur porn. Instead of trying to hold the camera steady, or setting it on a desk or table, you can record the action with Glass. But aside from that…
Google Glass will fail because of its merits – the lack of. It is creepy and violates privacy everywhere one uses it. It is socially terrible to use. If someone uses it in my building, I would kick them out.
The Segway failed because it was (and is) way too expensive. Also, the fact that you stand while riding it…for 5000+ dollars the thing better come with a seat. Combine that with the fact that they are also the tool of choice for rent-a-cops and mall security, they’re doomed to be nothing more than an expensive cliche.
I’d rather have a hoverround…at least I can take that to the Grand Canyon.
I think you have an inflated sense of your own importance. The obscurity of the Segway, in your mind, has less to do with normal market factors and the merits of the product than it does with the fact that EVERYONE paid attention to you and formed their opinion of the product based on their impression of you. Really? I’ve never heard of you before, but I still didn’t choose to spend thousands of dollars on a Segway. I guess I’m one of the rare outliers who doesn’t base my opinion of tech products on what I think you think about them. Seriously?
Oh man! I just realized I’ve ruined this comments thread! Now that everyone knows what I think they will totally base their responses on ME. Sorry, man.
Thanks, “Gimpy.” Nice anonymous name.
Anyhow, appreciate your comment. I really don’t, but whatever. 🙂
Maybe I’m wrong. But you shouldn’t read that as discouraging. If this truly wasn’t an article written to remind people of your importance–if you mean it when you say that you were “that guy” who ruined the Segway–then I’m serious in saying “no way.” Ride around to your heart’s content. No one SHOULD care…any more than they should care what I post here. No one should criticize you. You can enjoy your wheels with a clear conscience.
To be honest, I stopped riding it years ago when I started training for a marathon. I couldn’t justify electricity powering me around NYC when I could have just as easily been walking. That’s the main reason I stopped using it.
Believe me – I don’t give a fuck about what people say about me. If I cared about self-importance, or what others think of me, I would have put a gun to my head decades ago.
This is perfect, thanks for following up!
Re: Glass circa 2014
“I stopped using it. I couldn’t justify the social alienation and looking like a complete d-bag when I could have just as easily pulled out my smartphone.”
It’s highly unlikely that you had anything to do with what happened to the Segway. Please don’t give yourself that much credit. The Segway was, and is, a tremendous waste of money for what is basically, a toy. Yes, it’s fun. But not very useful for most people. It failed all on its own.
Glass is the same thing. No one has heard of Scoble, and no reads what he writes. No one, in the context of the billions who will be exposed to Glass, that is. If he affects what a few geeks do, or don’t do, it’s meaningless overall. Glass is a terrible idea. It’s already being banned in many places, and that’s something I can certainly agree with. It’s something that likely most people can agree with. Perhaps sometime in some dystopian future where no one cares about Big Brother watching, this will catch on. I hope we never get to that future, and neither should you!
Yet again, my point is being missed, even though I updated my post. I don’t think “Peter Shankman” caused the downfall of Segway. Really?! Just as I don’t think “Only Robert Scoble” will cause the death of Glass – But… You know what? Screw it. Just read my update in italics at the top of this post. I’m too tired to retype it.
I don’t think your point is being missed, I think it isn’t valid. Many Apple products are widely derided by the media but they sell incredibly well because they provide solutions for consumers. Segway ended up as a niche product because that was the market for the problem it solved. It’s that simple. Glass is in the same boat, it’s not solving a mass market problem, it solves a niche market problem. It isn’t that Segway or Glass are ‘geeks only’ as you write, they are ‘niche only’.
You’re comparing Apple, a computer, which tipped to mainstream in the late 80s, with a transporter device or wearable connectivity? That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
I think he is comparing Apple the iPod, iPhone, iPad mainstream portable connectivity devices to Google Glass the portable connectivity device. Not a stretch at all GGlass is highly niche much like the Segway. GGlass will rise of fall on its own merits and its ability to appeal to a huge cross section of people. Personally, I don’t see what problem it is trying to solve.
Apple products only went mainstream recently. That’s what a lot of analysts miss re: Apple. Computing only just now shifted to the mass market, consumer-facing. Products mostly succeed or fail based on the problem the product solves, how well it solves the problem, and who needs the solution. What the product is doesn’t matter. Not that many people need the solution the Segway provides. You may think (or wish) everyone needs it, but that is not true. I knew this the instant Segway was launched, it was obvious that it was a niche product. It is the same with Glass, it might be a great product after a few iterations, but that’s not going to change the reality that only a few people need that solution. Glass will be great for some uses, but it won’t be mass market.
Horace Dedieu of Asymco “fame” talks of products in the context of the “jobs they’re hired to do.” Products succeed in the mass market because they solve real problems. I’m not talking about fads that are “hot this summer!” and gone by the fall—chia pets, pet rocks, Nintendo Wiis if you stretch the season out to 3 years. I’m talking about products that redefine categories, or sustain significant sales year after year for decades.
The Segway was and is cool, but it didn’t solve any problem, for anybody. Anyone who can use one has to be able to stand and control inclination and declination; such a person can already *walk*. As someone else said above, a Hoverround is a better solution because it affords mobility to people with physical handicaps.
Which brings us to Google Glass (and, by extension, to why neither you nor Robert Scoble matter one iota to mass market success). In every presentation of the product, Larry Page has tried to reframe current solutions as problems. Remember “smartphones are emasculating”? There IS a future for augmented reality and pervasive head-up displays, but Glass is just a clunky, lab-worthy prototype that should never have been hyped to the public. DOA.
Scoble (and you) seem to be oblivious to all of the above. People don’t buy gadgets just because they read about them in USA Today, even if the review is positive and they think, “Hey, that’s cool.” They buy gadgets when the benefit to themselves justifies the cost and inconvenience of the gadget. Both the Segway and Google Glass lie on the wrong side of that curve.
I want to thank you for one of the first logical, well thought out, and rational comments to come from the fireball mention. Well said.
The only thing I’d argue is that I’m quite aware of how products that are successful are problem solvers. I never said I was entirely responsible for Segway’s failure – To read into that from my post is naive, at best. I AM saying though, that Scoble doesn’t help Glass in the slightest by his tongue up the ass of Google review.
Perhaps I should have just called it “tongue up the ass of google” and been done with my post, but than John Gruber wouldn’t have had the opportunity to call me a “blowhard,” and I wouldn’t have gotten any of this traffic, so hey, I’ll take it.
I apologize if I came across as snarky. I always try to cut through the predominant attitude of anonymous ridicule (“what a douche!” “what a blowhard!” “what a clueless ****!”)—often from people who are less qualified, and haven’t had the courage to articulate their own positions publicly. Sometimes I fail. My bad.
I don’t know much about you. It was unfair to tar you with the brush with which I feather Scoble, who I DO know much more about, and who I regard with bemusement at best. I find the majority of contemporary computing technology commentary insipid and self-absorbed, eternally ignoring the fundamental question of what value the slobbered-over product or service provides to users, and at what cost.
Google played its hand much too early. That may cost it severely in the long run.
Thanks for the reply. 🙂 Agreed re: Google.
i use ad block.
You’re kidding right? I said *the same thing* as Oluseyi (and earlier I believe) and you kept arguing with me about it.
“Bad form, Scoble. You of all people should know better.”
What?! Over-enthusiastic, tone deafness is Scoble’s ENTIRE schtick! His entire brand is based on not knowing better.
I know. I just said it nicer. 🙂
I think you’re vastly overstating the importance of punditry on shaping consumer preferences. Vastly. Get over yourselves…
It has nothing to do with Scoble. And my opinions about the Segway without ever having seen or heard of you up until now (followed a link from Daring Fireball).
First, Gruber resulting to name calling is childish. But I think things like Google Glass and the Segway are similar to the G4 Cube. A great idea and design can be killed by cost. And I don’t think either the Segway or Glass have a great design. The cost of both are overwhelming compared to their perceived value. I live in a city where a Segway would be great, but where do I park it at my apartment? It costs way more than an actual scooter as well as topping out at a much lower speed. You may be able to win if there are only a few deficiencies vs the benefits, but both Glass and Segway (as well as the Cube) simply don’t meet that spec.
“Problem was, I said all the wrong things to the media” No. The problem, as Gruber pointed out so succinctly, was that Segways were not appealing to the public at-large for $4000.
“So what do people think? They think what they read and see…” No. I think what I choose to think based on all of the information in front of me. You, however, appear not to be able to read or process information, e.g. Gruber’s post.
The reason you’re getting pushback from Gruber is that your thesis is fundamentally broken. Gruber is correct that technologies succeed or fail based on whether the mass public like them, not on the opinions of Robert Scoble and similar.
A perfect example of this is Bluetooth. You can make all the geeky jokes you like about people looking like robots with headsets in their ears, talking to themselves like the mentally ill — and when BT headsets came out people DID make such jokes — but BT headsets had obvious real value to the public.
We are going to see a second round of this soon with smartwatches, with the “I’m too cool to ever wear a watch” crowd and the “I wouldn’t wear a watch based on technology invented after 1500” crowd already giving us their (oh-so-valuable) opinions.
Personally I think Gruber is wrong, in the the long-run about Glass. (Though I suspect in the short-run the technology is not good enough, and the capabilities too limited for it to achieve take-off — compare with the first round of PDAs.) But I think he is correct that these things live or die by much broader appeal or lack thereof than the opinions of a few bloggers.
If Google Glass Fails, it’s Google’s fault….for giving it to the likes of Robert Scoble before anyone else.
I mean, no disrespect, I’ve never met the guy, but Google’s deference to the tech blog A-listers has always mystified me as its not the way to give your product social cachet or (if this is an aim) bring it to the mass market.
Exhibit A – Google+ was seeded with this crowd as well, and we all know how that’s doing with the Facebook-using masses…
Scoble may be right, wearables (if not Google Glass) could eventually be as transformational as the iPhone, but from what I remember, at least here in the UK, it was the likes of the Beckhams having them that really helped it become something consumers actually desired.
No, 99% of people outside the tech and social media bubble have no idea who Robert Scoble is, but the way Google has handled its roll-out has done wonders to reinforce the perception that its a gadget for middle aged white guys with a surplus of cash and a deficit in social skills as neatly summed up by this (which we’ve all seen) – http://whitemenwearinggoogleglass.tumblr.com/
Peter, despite the fact I came from DF I enjoyed your perspective quite a bit. I’m glad John linked to it.
“I’d call him a douche, but…” – well you did just call him a douche, so please cut out the passive aggressive communication. He called you a blowhard and just call John a douche and be done with it.
Sorry but if Google Glass fails it is more be because the world wasn’t ready for it
My husband just qualified for Google Glass beta, but with the hefty price tag PLUS a trip to Cali to be trained on them, it’s not going to happen.
Though after reading the review, my thought about Google Glass does not change and I am still wondering why we ever need it.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
© 2022 Peter Shankman. | Designed by GIF Design Studios