Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikpukinskis | Hacker News Reader

All Gruber seems to be saying is "if people don't use a product all the time it's a bad product" which is pretty obviously false to anyone who gives it a second thought.

When it suits him he argues that history is irrelevant (Android won't "windows" iOS) but because it suits him here he tosses in a fairly distant historical analogy (Glass is the Windows Tablet of wearable computing) and that's QED for him.

I really like 90% of Gruber's analysis, and the bulk of "Fanboy" accusations against him are totally bogus, but this is weak.

Maybe he's jonesing for a team to root against because it's the baseball off season.

View on HN

I don't think your restatement is entirely fair -- "if people don't use a product at all it's a bad product" would be closer.

Even that's somewhat reductionist, of course; there are a lot of good products that we use only occasionally. But there are some products which are designed to be with you most of the time: smartphones are an obvious example. Watches are another one. How about a smartwatch? I think it'd be fair to say that if you're wearing your smartwatch most of the time when you go out, it's a success for you; if you don't like wearing it -- for whatever reason, whether aesthetics or because it isn't that functional (or both) -- and mostly only trot it out to show people, it's really a failure for you. If most of the smartwatch's buyers are in the "only trot it out to show people" camp, the product is arguably a failure.

And, I think it's fair to use the same criteria for Google Glass. Are most of the people who own a Glass using it regularly, or are they only trotting it out when it'll be cool to show people? Scoble is, whether he puts it that way or not, effectively arguing the latter. Gruber is in turn saying that if that's true, it means that Glass -- even if it's a marvelous technology showcase -- isn't a good product.

(As for the contention that Gruber will argue history is relevant when it suits him and irrelevant when it doesn't, well, we all do that, and I think we'd all claim that we're doing it because in some cases history is relevant and in other cases it isn't, right? Whether Android will "windows" iOS depends on whether you think the mobile computing market will follow the same trajectory as the PC market did; if you think the concept of Glass will take off one day, maybe dramatically, but Glass itself will be something of a footnote, then the Windows Tablet comparison is apt.)

> As for the contention that Gruber will argue history is relevant when it suits him and irrelevant when it doesn't, well, we all do that

Agreed. But tossing out an analogy and claiming it applies is the lowest form of that. I think to make a real contribution you have to make some attempt to justify why the analogical bits are more relevant than the contradicting bits.

I'm not saying Gruber is wrong, or that he doesn't have a point to make. Just that he's "phoning it in" with this post. The points you make, in detail, make for much better analysis.

Glasshole here -- and I think Gruber's comments are fair. It's a product that is intended to be used all the time. So if people don't, "is it bad?" is a valid question. I can't wear it all the time, because the battery life is ridiculously short, and I won't, because they're so ostentatious and dorky looking (and I'm vain enough) that I often don't want to be seen wearing them. By Gruber's standards, all those reasons + the price = a failed consumer product.

But I doubt Google's grading it as a typical consumer product. It works for Google for it to be expensive and obvious, because the wearers become visible motivated evangelists for the technology. It just doesn't work for me, personally, and clearly doesn't work for Gruber.

All that said... aside from the decent-sized UI problems it has... once you spend some time with it, the "omnipresent screen" is as addictive as the original iPhone was. Blackberry is a better analogy; I look forward to Google's improvements as well as what I hope is serious competition from the A players and not just Kickstarters.

(Plus, I'm really enjoying coding for it. It feels new and exciting, like there's huge unclaimed areas waiting to be conquered. Lots of limitations to work around, too.)

I find Gruber tiresome because Apple doesn't need a cheerleader anymore. Back in the dark days when everyone was taking a dump on Apple he was interesting because of his ability to put his finger on what made Apple products special. Now that Apple products have proven their popularity the idiotic punditry that Gruber chooses to pick apart is mostly not worth the response.

This is the perfect case in point. What Gruber is saying is 100% correct as a response to Scoble's phrasing. That is, products don't sink or swim because the companies' employees choose to use them or not. Of course there's a correlation there since employees are also consumers. If pressed I suspect Scoble would probably concede that his phrasing was sloppy, and that he meant it more in the sense that lack of employee adoption is the canary in the coal mine.

Your assumption at first sentence is wrong.

He told employees. That means completely different with just people. Employees are fully informed of it, and even already have it for free. (further, they are being paid for it)

If someone doesn't want to use a product which s/he already have, and knows very well, isn't it enough to think that's a crap?

If people don't use an augmented reality, wearable, ubiquitous computing device all the time, it's a bad product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com