The closest analogy I see is with the segway. Something that could be useful and even world-changing but overhyped and dumped on a market without justifying it's existence. Apple could have released the iPad first but they waited to teach the market what it was with the iPhone first. Thus each step (iPhone, tablet) was a new form of a familiar thing rather than a new thing altogether.
If I were in Google's shoes, I would start by introducing the glass into existing items such as workplace safety goggles. Imagine a pair of carpenter's safety goggles that could measure a piece of wood, or track a list of supplies, or show a work plan as you go. It's not the big play, but you can try it in a bunch of contexts until it catches on. It will generate press and awareness, and then once the novelty wears off you can make a "smart goggles for everyone".
Google's mistake continues to be that the believe value is in novelty, when really it is in taking something people are already familiar with and reinventing it, better.
About six months ago there was a reddit post about a HDR welding mask (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM517kYS6kY). The thread had many interesting comments, including welders claiming that they didn't need such a mask, because they could already weld well with their sense of feeling and limited vision. To me, this is a really good example of what we will be seeing with a lot of these kinds of technology.
That's the opinion of the generation trained without the technology. What about a new welder who learns by using the HDR mask? Could that improve their performance and productivity overall given equal time and training?
> Apple could have released the iPad first but they waited to teach the market what it was with the iPhone first.
Amazing. They had both products in mind, considered them both, and thought that it would be best to lead with the iPhone, aye? And Steve told you this, did he?
Jobs has been quoted saying the concept for the iPad came first and there have been pictures come out in the Samsung case showing a prototype from 2002. The iPhone likely did help establish the market for the iPad which would have been a niche device otherwise.
“My recollection of first seeing it is very hazy, but it was, I’m guessing, some time between 2002 and 2004,” Ive testified. “I remember seeing this and perhaps models similar to this when we were first exploring tablet designs that ultimately became the iPad.”
In addition to the already mentioned quotes and biography, Apple had nearly 30 years of research in the space [1]; you've probably heard of the (failed) Newton. At some point in 200x, they decided to try one more time, this time as a smartphone. It kind of worked.
If I were in Google's shoes, I would start by introducing the glass into existing items such as workplace safety goggles. Imagine a pair of carpenter's safety goggles that could measure a piece of wood, or track a list of supplies, or show a work plan as you go. It's not the big play, but you can try it in a bunch of contexts until it catches on. It will generate press and awareness, and then once the novelty wears off you can make a "smart goggles for everyone".
Google's mistake continues to be that the believe value is in novelty, when really it is in taking something people are already familiar with and reinventing it, better.