
Bad News: Google Is Doing The Corporate Future-Vision Video Thing - Robelius
http://techland.time.com/2012/04/04/bad-news-google-is-doing-the-corporate-future-vision-video-thing/
======
cromwellian
Except like the Google Car and unlike the Microsoft future video with
transparency, flexible, credit card computer displays, and unlike Apple's
Knowledge Navigator, Google has functioning devices.

Self-drivable cars hade been around for years. What's different about the
Google Prius versions is that they look almost practical, if you squint just a
little bit, just minimized the sensors a little bit more it could even fit
within a car's stylish exterior. In contrast, some of the past versions were
very slow driving and had a truck's worth of equipment in them.

I really think this is a false comparison (to other corporate future videos).
Google may release a product that fails to gain adoption, but they will
release something.

BTW, go search youtube for AT&T's "You Will" campaign with Tom Selleck. They
got a lot of stuff right.

~~~
jedc
Apple can test new phones and new phone prototypes pretty easily. Hardware can
be hidden in new cases, software can just not be shown to other people.

Google tested self-driving cars for quite a while; it was only when the
NYTimes was about to write a story about it anyway that they publicly released
information.

I would assume these glasses are going to be pretty difficult to hide from the
general public when the team is out testing them. If I were them I'd rather
release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger
getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest.

~~~
martinkallstrom
Yeah you never want a firestorm of interest around new products.

~~~
jedc
But it doesn't look like it's a new product at all; it's just a prototype they
want to test in public.

------
pinaceae
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.

~~~
Tichy
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
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
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.

~~~
yummyfajitas
This is very tricky to do. Once you are part of a big company you are risking
more than just your small startup.

There is brand risk - if a startup makes a bad product, then petfud.ly looks
bad. If MS Startup Division does, MS looks bad.

If a startup makes a bad product that kills people (or they take on risky
contracts with a big downside), they get sued out of existence. If some small
division of MS does, MS gets sued out of existence.

Big companies are less agile for a good reason. They have a lot more to lose.

~~~
ollerac
I think there's a way around this. For example, YouTube has remained a
relatively separate brand from Google so I think things they do wouldn't
reflect back on Google as much.

One company I think is _really_ good at this is Amazon. IMDB, dpreview,
Audible, Zappos, Woot, and Endless all have maintained their brand fidelity
while also benefitting tremendously from Amazon's technology and assets.

Even negative press for Amazon's Web Services doesn't really impact the Amazon
brand in most consumers eyes, which is pretty amazing in my opinion.

------
swang
From a pure Speech Recognition POV, I will believe Google Goggles is possible
when they somehow solved the major problems in Speech Recognition. SR tech has
been around forever, but only in the last few years have companies been able
to process it on the server side and then zap it over a wireless connection to
get somewhat OK processing times.

But no one has yet to solve the two problems plaguing SR: First, putting a
whole SR engine on a machine let alone on a pair of embedded chips on a piece
of eyewear for instant SR. Even with miniaturization and speed/power
improvements I just don't see it happening mainly because chip makers have
decided to just add more cores. I may be wrong but it seems difficult to
parallelize this with a large corpus.

Obviously the solution is to go the other way and have super fast guaranteed
wireless connection at all times. This will still produce lag but probably
acceptable levels for most people.

The second problem is one that most people encounter with SR which is when the
bloody thing doesn't translate what you said. Either because of an accent or
because you're saying something unique or difficult to parse. I tried asking
directions to a Mexican place in OC and the results were: Q Cortes, cute
protcullis, cute Portos, Q Portales. Can you figure out what I was trying to
say? That is the inherent difficulty of the "last mile" problems that SR has
and I haven't read or heard anything about anyone solving this anytime soon.
SR tech will always be just "good enough" where they can show it off at a
meeting/conference but never good enough to be like Star Trek (which
unfortunately has set a incredibly huge bar for people's expectations).

Even though the Nokia video is less ambitious they seem to have decided to not
include any talking in their future tech videos which seems like a smart idea
to me.

~~~
stcredzero
_From a pure Speech Recognition POV, I will believe Google Goggles is possible
when they somehow solved the major problems in Speech Recognition._

I think one could take the form factor and have an awesome product without
speech recognition. The potential for AR games alone is compelling. Real time
translation of foreign language signs would be useful. Tourist guidebooks
would be great. HUD for maps/gps alone could be a viable market.

------
irollboozers
Man, what a debbie downer. This article coming from a guy who tweeted, "It's
April 1st. THE SINGLE LEAST FUNNY DAY ON THE INTERNET."

Maybe it's just because I've seen the actual effort and the basic research
being done by those tinkerers at Google, that it seems real to me. I know a
phd student who has spent the past 1.5 years without his professor because he
was away at Google working on this (Babak).

This writer just seems like he is stirring the pot though. Unless he has
supreme insight into Google's go-to-market plans, or even basic research for
that matter, I don't get why he feels entitled to shoot down another person's
vision. While others daydream, semi-journo's abound whose only existence is
pointless contrariety.

------
sek
Should i tell you how these videos get made at Microsoft? The MS Office
division has a million left in his marketing budget "Why not make a cool
futuristic video?" When they are hyper futuristic they are just Marketing.
Look at us we are visionary and innovative.

Google has a prototype for a concrete product and tries to show us what the
idea behind this is. Like Microsoft they also have the money for an expensive
video.

Look at the difference between Google Cars, with a prototype and a clear value
proposition and this Toyota video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4k0i0c2LWw>
where nothing makes sense at all.

~~~
swalsh
The boldness of future videos in terms of style seems to have increased quite
a bit since the invention of CGI.

------
tjic
What irks me is the painfully studied hipness of the video.

Indy bookstore? Check.

Ukulele reference? Check.

Food truck? Check.

Brooklyn location? Check.

Late 20-something SWPL protagonists in man-boy phase of life? Check.

Ugh.

~~~
Kylekramer
It was pretty obviously Manhattan. Hip Lower Manhattan, but Manhattan.

~~~
tjic
Sure, the Strand is in lower Manhattan, but you're telling me a video that
features a food truck and a uke book doesn't START in Brooklyn?

10:1 the apartment was in Park Slope.

~~~
rory096
That's not really reconcilable with the guy using the 6 train stop at 23rd and
Park.

------
Steko
The other side of this argument is that what Google is doing here is closer to
what MS did with Kinect -- get visibly attached to a groundbreaking original
new product it has confidence it will bring to market.

The Project Natal concept/intro video similarly overpromised when you look at
the first wave of Kinect but the product itself is still crazy revolutionary
and the intro did build the hype and attached the tech unmistakably to MS.

~~~
ralfd
This is actually a good point.

Hm. The concept video was released a year and a half before release. Microsoft
obviously had to announce it, so third party devs could support it. But if you
watch the video so much stuff is bullshit! ^^ Also it gave the competition a
chance to react to it (Playstation Move? I don't own either and don't know
which wave-your-hand-stuff is working better or has better games.)

Natal Project: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAFbWE_5GvA>

Comparison by CNet: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJkPN2smB8>

It certainly built hype (but also derision. I remember many wouldn't take it
serious and as hyperbole). I think Kinect would have been successful in a more
truthful presentation. Like if Microsoft had done an Apple-like reveal and
only shown the real product two months before release.

------
kombine
This is not the future I want. I already got into the habit of not researching
things myself but rather finding a quick answer on Google. Now they take this
approach into the real life. You need to go somewhere? Google will carefully
plan a route for you. Their eventual goal is to route us throughout our entire
lifes. No, thanks.

~~~
almost_usual
I agree with this completely, I'm beginning to believe that these 'cool' and
'innovative' gadgets are beginning to strip away at the individual's
creativity and existence.

I'm not saying this technology wouldn't be cool or awesome to use, I just
don't see it benefitting the majority of humanity in the future.

~~~
DanBC
> _I just don't see it benefitting the majority of humanity in the future._

What do you mean by "benefit"?

There's a lot of stuff which has very little benefit if you define benefit in
certain ways.

With luck the trickle down (people becoming rich from creating these gadgets;
concentrations of very smart people in California; etc) could be used not only
to explore deep oceans but also to create smart innovative tech for developing
world problems.

It'd be great if Google (for example) had a developing world think-tank.

------
forkrulassail
Odd that this received a 'bad news' in the title. The Glass video got me
excited about not needing to carry around GPS, a phone and other unnecessary
gadgets, wearing only the glasses I already require. Also, the writer doesn't
know what is currently happening inside Google X.

~~~
ht_th
But all the things shown in the video already are available in a top-of-the-
line smartphone. The only difference is that you don't need to pull it out of
your pocket. That's just a small improvement if you're into that kind of
thing. What I did miss was actually augmenting reality enabling me to do _new_
things, to perceive the world around me in ways I cannot do now.

For example, given my preference in clothing and my body measurements, when
shopping in the city I would like to "block out" somehow all those shops than
probably don't have anything for me.

Or while cycling, I would like to seen an indication how fast to drive the
next section to not have to stop for the next traffic light. I often have to
stop for a red light to immediately start up again because the light turns
green. I hate that.

Or when I am working in my garden I would like to see some helping lines and
measures to dig straight lines, or to cut my trees at the best spots for it to
grow out nicely next summer. Or to be able to sow seeds at the optimal
distances from each other.

And so on. What kind of _augmented_ reality do you want?

~~~
eric-hu
But all the things available in a top-of-the-line smartphone were already
available in a laptop. The only difference is that you don't need to pull it
out of your backpack. It's just a small improvement if you're into that kind
of thing.

I could go on, but my point here is that improvements are incremental. Having
a desktop has been more convenient than a terminal remoting into a mainframe.
A laptop is that much more convenient over a desktop, and likewise with a
smartphone.

~~~
ralfd
But always wearing glasses is certainly not more convenient than just using a
device when you need it. It is like stripping your Smartphone on your wrist so
you don't need to pull it out of the pocket.

Also I doubt the vision will work that good like in the video. Just a detail:
Imagine the battery constraint of an always-on and always-connected device!
The glasses would be heavy!

And second I find the Google googles vision more scary than awesome. Like
someone quipped on a former thread "why would an advertising company would
want to put a filter between your eyeballs and reality?" And while I
understand that many would love a more cyberpunk-like future it frightens me.
Imagine the amount of pointless distraction to always have a newsfeed in your
visual field! Imagine the procrastination of people always lurking reddit or
facebook or hackernews! You know how incredible rude it is when you are
talking to people but they are checking their phone? And last not least:
Imagine getting used to the glasses and not functioning without it anymore!!

~~~
nknight
> _But always wearing glasses is certainly not more convenient than just using
> a device when you need it._

I take it you don't wear glasses. Many millions of us do. All day, every day,
our entire lives. It's in no way inconvenient.

------
snowwrestler
Visual interface won't work for this sort of thing.

Glasses are too close to the eye and multitasking will require constant focus
racking, which will tire the eyes and produce headaches. Elements displayed in
stereo will require very precise calibration to the user's face geometry to
prevent ghosting or eye strain. Elements displayed in one lens only will
appear transparent.

Even if the tech issues are solved perfectly, humans do not multitask visually
when moving; this is why heads-up displays are not common in cars despite the
technology being easy. It distracts more than it helps. HUD works in planes
because there is no immediate danger of collision when flying, so pilots can
focus just on the HUD for extended periods of time.

Humans in motion multitask across senses, not within senses. Most people can
walk and talk no problem--but walking and reading is a lot harder. So, the
future of wearable computing is probably a wearable computer that listens and
speaks.

And it's here now: a smartphone with an earbud is a wearable computer, and
it's proven successful in the marketplace. To be truly useful, it will need to
volunteer interactions the way the Google glasses do--but to do that well, it
will need to be listening at all times, and understand when information is
welcome and/or needed. Right now that is not possible with current levels of
battery and speech recognition technology.

In the far, far future I could see visual communication multi-tasked into
everyday life. It will take a lot of societal changes for that to happen
though. I like the portrayal of "picting" in Greg Bear's EON series.

------
staunch
If Apple started releasing videos like this it might be revealing. For Google
it just seems like the kind of out-of-character "mistake" they frequently make
due to their less strict and more decentralized nature.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
If you do something frequently doesn't that make it part of your character?

~~~
ollerac
I think he's arguing that Google has less of an established character because
they've put less effort into establishing one than Apple -- they're more a
bunch of teams working for the same company than one company.

I agree with this point, but I think Google is moving away from this, which I
think will be healthy in the short term and unhealthy in the longterm. Focused
companies need focused leaders. I think Larry Page is filling the Steve Jobs
role nicely right now, but if he falters the whole company will falter with
him.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Maybe it's just me but I think that Google has a pretty established culture -
tech led, try lots of stuff, beta early, don't be afraid to kill projects that
aren't working.

Page has certainly done a good job focusing the company more but I think it's
premature to suggest he's in the Steve Jobs mould. He's been in position for
12 months, Google simply isn't as built in his image as Apple was in Jobs. I'm
not talking about quality of thinking, leadership, intelligence or anything
like that, just the sheer extent to which Jobs had asserted his will over
Apple and it's culture.

------
Tichy
TL;DR: guy is dissatisfied that Google is not Apple.

------
krollew
Why bad news? Realy nice video. I dont't need that to enjoy any moment of my
life, but may help another people to do so. Why not?

------
cinquemb
If i had a new product, i would MVP it until it reaches success and iterate
until that point, not spend millions on it upfront. Sure its a nice product,
but great inventions will sell themselves if the people find it useful (and
can afford it) as long as you inform people that it exists.

------
abrimo
This reminds me of the article gruber wrote late last year about the types of
companies that make future concept videos.

[http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/companies_that_publish_con...](http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/companies_that_publish_concept_videos)

------
fatjokes
I think this is rather unfair as the main difference here is that Google has
demonstrated an active commitment to technologically groundbreaking projects,
namely the robot car. While it has not been brought to market either, it is
clearly an advanced prototype.

------
ollerac
Bad news?

I think it'd be cool if contributors were encouraged to remove blatant
opinions from flame bait headlines. I think this would show more respect to
our intelligence and openness as a community. I value the discussions on
hacker news more than the articles themselves and I think it's too bad that
this discussion started out with a biased tilt.

I think something more like "Google made a future vision video" would have
been a more appropriate headline. Then, if the community actually thinks it's
bad news, they can comment on the story and say so. I'd rather discuss plain
facts than the opinion of a time magazine article.

------
erikb
Google makes those videos for a long time now and usually they actually make
it happen. I think just because you know some situations where it didn't work,
it is not correct to assume that it is always a bad idea. Very likely we have
a lot of high tech stuff today because of this kind of videos. It's just a way
of presenting your idea in a quite understandable and exciting way. There are
of course other things like Powerpoint slides, blog posts and so on, but in in
the end what you do just depends on your budget and your available skillset.

~~~
falling
_> Google makes those videos for a long time now and usually they actually
make it happen._

Do you have have links to any of them handy? It would be interesting to
compare the concept video to the real product.

------
ImprovedSilence
There seems to be a lot of hate for this. I like to applaud companies for
making videos like this. Regardless of if it'll make the market in 2-5 years,
it inspires the imagination. It gets you thinking "If that is possible, I
wonder what else is possible" And then the ideas just flow. Same even goes for
that MS video with all those flat transparent screens. It really gets the
creative juices flowing with what can be done. Even if it just sparks you to
think of something completely different from what they show you. I like it.

------
ChrisAnn
Can I get them with a prescription? :/

------
nextstep
Exactly. If Google wasn't on a path to disappoint everyone, they would make
claims about their new product, and then release the damn thing a month or so
later so consumers could actually experience it (like any Apple release).
Instead, Google pre-hypes this thing with no announced plans to release it. I
think we can all assume that either the technology isn't quite as good (yet)
as it seemed in the video.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
Poor disappointed consumers. You mean I can't use this yet? But I want it
naaaooowww!! SIRI! Remind me to make a whiny blog post about this after my
afternoon mochaccino!

First world makes me sick sometimes

------
DanBC
About speech recognition:

Google has very many computers. Google has many smart people. Google knows how
to wrangle large data sets.

Google also has a bajiliion customers, and those customers are used to jumping
through various hoops. Google could get many people to speak words from a
dictionary; and then wrangle that data to improve speech recognition. (I'd be
interested in differences between languages and quality of recognition.)

~~~
waterlesscloud
Google's speech recognition on their voicemail-to-email interface is comically
bad.

~~~
moocow01
I'd have to second this - it used to really frustrate me but now I keep using
Google Voice because their transcriptions make for some great comedy. They are
always painfully off but constant entertainment.

------
uptown
I tend to think of videos like these as creations that are maybe technically
possible today, but not in a package that's affordable, and compact enough for
general sale. It's like Pixar making some of their movies. They'd save the
production of some scenes till the end of production because they presumed the
technology they'd need to pull off what they wanted to do would be available
by then.

------
dbattaglia
I think the real bad news here is imagining a world where everyone is walking
around the city talking to their glasses.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
Still better than talking to their phones? siri...? bluetooth earpiece...?

~~~
glanch
Nobody talks to Siri.

------
skimmas
for a guy that spends most of it's day working on a laptop, I really don't see
the need for yet another screen. This google thing just seems an excuse to
become a road kill. Multitasking all the time just seems to be incredible
tiring. (from someone that recently ditched his smartphone for is old regular
phone)

------
ArekDymalski
Google responded to the buzz - Sergey appeared wearing'em
[http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/google-project-glass-
serg...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/google-project-glass-sergey-brin/)

------
esolyt
Except they do have the product in their hands right now. They are testing it.

~~~
ralfd
But it is nothing like in the video.

~~~
nextparadigms
Siri is nothing like in the video, either. But saying "is nothing like" is
exaggerated anyway. I'm sure it's not 10x worse in reality, but pretty close.

------
pipecork
Let's hope it works better than my Apple Knowledge Navigator
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLqJNDWx-8>

~~~
falling
1987\. Right when Apple was starting to fall apart under Sculley. I think you
just proved his point.

------
bobthedino
I feel Nokia's video, in the article, is much better than Google's, mainly
because the hero protagonist doesn't speak.

~~~
ralfd
Well … our heroine does not only not speak, she does really nothing. She wakes
up only to crawl out of the bed and lie down on the couch. And then she
relaxes in the garden. While she is stalked by a guy. And only replying with
smilies! (I guess she is just not that into him. Or Nokia didn't foresee in
2009 stuff like Siri.)

------
gjmveloso
With a simple difference: Google executes their vision faster than Microsoft's
and Nokia's future visions.

------
zv
Imagine "Enlarge your member" and "Buy viagra now" popups on these devices :)

~~~
joezydeco
This is kind of a funny rework of the Google video along those lines:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TAOYXT840>

~~~
drKarl
I think it would be something more like this:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mRF0rBXIeg>

------
chj
usually this sort of things aren't going anywhere than the labs.

