X, on the other hand, has been around for over 6 years now and as far as I know, its only marginal success to date has been Glass. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that X's success rate so far has been lower than many people expected.
I mean, everything is obvious in retrospect. I'm sure there were some PARC guys bemoaning that all the fundamental discoveries were already made in the 1950s... Google today probably has bigger budgets than Xerox had then (tho' that's just a guess on my part)
For example: http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/02/07/the-difficulty-...
That was probably true originally. Lately, (especially post-Alphabet) it seems like the pressure is on them to produce commercial products, albeit ones that might be many years out - my impression is that researchers at PARC were not, realistically, under the same pressure (see: the many innovations that were never commercialized).
That makes sense, though - Google is actively in search of new business models, while Xerox enjoyed such enormous market share while PARC was well-funded that I doubt they felt that kind of pressure until later.
One thing did jump out at me in this article.
Mike Cassidy, who stepped down from Loon, ran the team “like a fire drill,” a former employee said.
I read this as, "Leadership likes to change its mind about direction and focus ... constantly". That's a recipe for disaster. Focus is key. You need to find the right direction as quick as possible, then execute.
It may sound hackneyed, but I believe necessity is the mother of invention and it doesn't seem there is that kind of motivation here...it feels forced.
The self-driving car is the project that seems to have the biggest potential impact, but the string of high-profile departures over the last year or two is worrisome.
Also, the leader wearing Rollerblades to meetings seems far too much like a parody of "quirky tech visionary" for my comfort. But maybe I'm more traditional/close-minded than most here.