Hacker News Reader

Comment by cargo8 | Hacker News Reader

> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. To me, that’s everything. Same thing with all existing smartwatches — the problem isn’t the idea, it’s the actual execution. There are no points for being first to market with a bad product.

This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a glimpse of what the future can be, and getting everyone else to think about it. The wearables revolution was started with Glass, and whether or not Glass ends up being the flagship product of the wearables market it doesn't matter. Google started it either way.

View on HN

His point is that no one remembers the Tablet PC and everyone remembers the iPad. But that's a really weak argument to me. The Tablet PC didn't just fail because the form factor was 10 years too early and because the design missed the mark... but because the product was abandoned. If Google keeps up, stays hungry and keeps working through the early issues they can come out as the market leader just as easy as Apple or whomever tries to follow.

My HP tc1100 has about the same functionality as a 1st gen iPad, only with more RAM, 1/5th the battery life, resistive stylus screen, and twice the weight. That's what it means that it was "10 years too early." That said, HP was a premier tech company in its day, and the tc1100 was a tour-de force of industrial time for its time.

If Google Glass is the best one of the premier tech companies can do now, then it's clearly too early.

There is no such thing as being "too early" to market. That is how you cut your teeth, learn and get ahead. You fail when you give up on the idea (or are proven that it will never catch on... either way). However if you create a product that eventually takes off, and if you continue to iterate it and not abandon it, you can't be too early. And, if nothing else, it is 100x less risky to be too early, than too late.

> There is no such thing as being "too early" to market.

The history of the Newton disagrees with you.

It took quite a few years before someone built the product that the technology could support well (the PalmPilot).

History is littered with counterexamples. If you look at people or companies that have been refered to as "ahead of their time", it is frequently in the context of why they ultimately failed.

Tablet PCs are a case in point -- Microsoft or HP had not abandoned the tablet market. They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was released. They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet that appealed to the masses.

Also, regarding the "riskier to be too late" comment: The book "Copycats" by Oded Shenkar makes the case that it's frequently the imitators that win the market rather than the innovators. This blog post reviews it and cites some interesting statistics from it: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/03/down-with-innovation-up...

I guess I see "being early" and "building the right product" as orthogonal. Microsoft / HP built the wrong product for the wrong market, but that's not necessarily because they were too early!

"They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was released. They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet that appealed to the masses."

I think this is a succinct refutation of the Tablet PC being a counterexample to something "ahead of their time". The lack of success of the Tablet PC wasn't because it was "too early for the technology", but it's because Microsoft and HP were developing the wrong device for the wrong market.

That said, I do tend to agree with your premise that you certainly can be "ahead of your time", and that being first to market does not always correlate with being the best to the market.

I used my Fujitsu tablet every day for 4+ years. Best laptop I ever had... and the "tablet features" were amazing for note-taking and presentations. Just sayin'... some of us remember.

Agreed, but that's exactly what I've come to expect from Gruber. Rather than use Google's "physically grotesque and glaringly obtrusive" device, he's waiting on Apple's "elegant, beautiful, graceful" execution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com