crackspread Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Glass will never be a big seller in the real world. I just don't see the value for consumers to pay $1500 for an intrusive product like Glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Glass won't be $1500 forever. There was a time when you had to spend more than $10k for an HDTV or 4-figures for a DVD player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenaidaMacroura Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Glass will never be a big seller in the real world. I just don't see the value for consumers to pay $1500 for an intrusive product like Glass. I don't disagree per say, but.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 1, 2014 Author Share Posted January 1, 2014 Google Glass and other similar devices will come down in price and be made to look better. The question is more about social acceptance, IMO. You see it when someone takes a phone out. But will people find it creepy that someone could be filming them at any time, from up close, without their knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Glass will never be a big seller in the real world. I just don't see the value for consumers to pay $1500 for an intrusive product like Glass. I think the question is whether it'll be big for Google? In my opinion, the likelihood of wearable technologies succeeding is quite high. Whether it's Google, Apple, Samsung or someone else who does the best out of it is not something anyone can be sure of I'd say. If I was speculating, I'd say that all 3 of them are in with a shot along with Nike, Oakley and even more upper class eye-wear brands. My argument against the intrusiveness factor is that, if I'm not mistaken, cellphones had the same hurdle to overcome when they first started selling widely. At the time, people thought it was pretty rude, inconsiderate and weird that folks would talk in public at a device. If you look at how that's ended up, I'd say betting against a Glass-like device is perhaps a bad idea. However, who will benefit the most seems to be a very tough question to find any adequate answer for at this early point in proceedings. I do think it's likely that Google cares most about owning the ecosystem though, and having Glass be hugely popular (and profitable) would be something to have on top of that. The advantage being that once they've got a screen right in front of your retina it could make a whole lot of other devices (phones, TV's, etc) almost obsolete, because why not just use that one interface for everything. Also, they'd control the ecosystem. Theoretically, anyway. PS. I think some type of mic attachment could lower the speech volume levels significantly, and as others have said the price should come down significantly over time as more producers focus their R&D on these sorts of devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I think GG could be a great niche device, especially for certain professional uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I think GG could be a great niche device, especially for certain professional uses. Great point. Now that you mention it, I remember having read something to that effect. If I'm not mistaken, it's being tested at certain engineering firms where workers need both hands free and (don't quote me on this, because I could be recalling incorrectly) also by land surveyors who need to measure distances and heights on the go and Glass together with Google's other apps can help them make any relevant changes as they work. Interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Google Glass and other similar devices will come down in price and be made to look better. The question is more about social acceptance, IMO. You see it when someone takes a phone out. But will people find it creepy that someone could be filming them at any time, from up close, without their knowledge? Remember those Bluetooth headsets that everyone was walking around with a while back? Today, you see very few of them despite the introduction of laws that ban talking on your phone while driving and despite phones having gotten much bigger. There is a reason for that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Remember those Bluetooth headsets that everyone was walking around with a while back? Today, you see very few of them despite the introduction of laws that ban talking on your phone while driving and despite phones having gotten much bigger. There is a reason for that . Hey valueInv, If you're going to try and end off your commentary with a powerful sense of profundity and suspense, I just think you should seriously consider using this - It's deceptively effective and anyone who sees it will instantly know who's boss. Happy New Year. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Remember those Bluetooth headsets that everyone was walking around with a while back? Today, you see very few of them despite the introduction of laws that ban talking on your phone while driving and despite phones having gotten much bigger. There is a reason for that . Hey valueInv, If you're going to try and end off your commentary with a powerful sense of profundity and suspense, I just think you should seriously consider using this - It's deceptively effective and anyone who sees it will instantly know who's boss. Happy New Year. :) A word to the wise is sufficient ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 A word to the wise is sufficient ;) Meh... I prefer Bill Cosby's more enlightened and less self-congratulatory take on that particular issue. Also, his irreverent approach towards the more fetid aspects of conventional wisdom is refreshing. And funny. Promoting an open, enjoyable and collaborative approach to wisdom-seeking is a crazy idea though. That would never work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 A word to the wise is sufficient ;) Meh... I prefer Bill Cosby's more enlightened and less self-congratulatory take on that particular issue. Also, his irreverent approach towards the more fetid aspects of conventional wisdom is refreshing. And funny. Promoting an open, enjoyable and collaborative approach to wisdom-seeking is a crazy idea though. That would never work. Not subtle enough, ajc ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 A word to the wise is sufficient ;) Meh... I prefer Bill Cosby's more enlightened and less self-congratulatory take on that particular issue. Also, his irreverent approach towards the more fetid aspects of conventional wisdom is refreshing. And funny. Promoting an open, enjoyable and collaborative approach to wisdom-seeking is a crazy idea though. That would never work. Not subtle enough, ajc ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Wow, inspiring stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Google Unit Cuts the Price of Moto X Phone Move Continues the Assault on Its Rivals' High Margins http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579294970012831360?mod=Business_newsreel_10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 They're also 'assaulting' their own margins on the hardware, if any. I bet if it sold really well at the old price, they wouldn't be lowering it so soon after launch. Maybe they got stuck with a huge inventory after xmas? Sounds like spin to me. More than two-thirds of Samsung's operating profit came from its sales of mobile devices in the third quarter. Motorola, by contrast, has recorded losses of roughly $2 billion since it was acquired by Google in 2012. The price cut could be an effort to boost sales of the Moto X, which have been slow. Strategy Analytics estimates that Motorola sold roughly 500,000 in the third quarter, after the phone's August release. By comparison, Samsung said it sold more than 10 million Galaxy S4 phones within a month of its April release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 They're also 'assaulting' their own margins on the hardware, if any. I bet if it sold really well at the old price, they wouldn't be lowering it so soon after launch. Maybe they got stuck with a huge inventory after xmas? Sounds like spin to me. More than two-thirds of Samsung's operating profit came from its sales of mobile devices in the third quarter. Motorola, by contrast, has recorded losses of roughly $2 billion since it was acquired by Google in 2012. The price cut could be an effort to boost sales of the Moto X, which have been slow. Strategy Analytics estimates that Motorola sold roughly 500,000 in the third quarter, after the phone's August release. By comparison, Samsung said it sold more than 10 million Galaxy S4 phones within a month of its April release. +1. And Motorola was already losing money even before the X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 They're also 'assaulting' their own margins on the hardware, if any. I bet if it sold really well at the old price, they wouldn't be lowering it so soon after launch. Maybe they got stuck with a huge inventory after xmas? Sounds like spin to me. More than two-thirds of Samsung's operating profit came from its sales of mobile devices in the third quarter. Motorola, by contrast, has recorded losses of roughly $2 billion since it was acquired by Google in 2012. The price cut could be an effort to boost sales of the Moto X, which have been slow. Strategy Analytics estimates that Motorola sold roughly 500,000 in the third quarter, after the phone's August release. By comparison, Samsung said it sold more than 10 million Galaxy S4 phones within a month of its April release. spin comes from corporate pr, ala blackberry. from vested interests. it does not, or at least should not, come from journalists. you can disagree with his interpretation of the price cut, as I do. But it's not spin. the author sees if from one angle, and he is emphasizing the wrong point imo. but I agree with you. the phone was never a premium product and should never have been priced as high as it was. I predict the price will be around $300 in a few months. the Nexus 5 is $350, and is a better phone. the real bargain from Moto is the G. There has never been a better phone at that price point, currently around $200. But there is a rumor that Verizon is going to offer one for $99. This is not your father's wireless business anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 spin comes from corporate pr, ala blackberry. from vested interests. it does not, or at least should not, come from journalists. you can disagree with his interpretation of the price cut, as I do. But it's not spin. the author sees if from one angle, and he is emphasizing the wrong point imo. Journalists talk to companies and read their materials, and some of them buy into the spin given to them and repeat it, while others are more skeptical and see through it. This can absolutely be spin, though we can't be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 They're also 'assaulting' their own margins on the hardware, if any. I bet if it sold really well at the old price, they wouldn't be lowering it so soon after launch. Maybe they got stuck with a huge inventory after xmas? Sounds like spin to me. More than two-thirds of Samsung's operating profit came from its sales of mobile devices in the third quarter. Motorola, by contrast, has recorded losses of roughly $2 billion since it was acquired by Google in 2012. The price cut could be an effort to boost sales of the Moto X, which have been slow. Strategy Analytics estimates that Motorola sold roughly 500,000 in the third quarter, after the phone's August release. By comparison, Samsung said it sold more than 10 million Galaxy S4 phones within a month of its April release. spin comes from corporate pr, ala blackberry. from vested interests. it does not, or at least should not, come from journalists. you can disagree with his interpretation of the price cut, as I do. But it's not spin. the author sees if from one angle, and he is emphasizing the wrong point imo. but I agree with you. the phone was never a premium product and should never have been priced as high as it was. I predict the price will be around $300 in a few months. the Nexus 5 is $350, and is a better phone. the real bargain from Moto is the G. There has never been a better phone at that price point, currently around $200. But there is a rumor that Verizon is going to offer one for $99. This is not your father's wireless business anymore. Journalists write stories fed by corporate marketing; companies have entire departments dedicated to "influencing" press, analysts, bloggers and other players. Further, companies frequently trade early access to products, leaks and news for positive articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Glass's chief cheerleading officer 8): https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/1UfNLdZAN4h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2014/01/apples-ios-pummels-android-mobile-shopping-report 1, The theory is that Google gives away Android for free and subsidizes devices to win marketshare and make money from Android advertising. 2, But the people spending money and buying things are mostly on iOS. So CMOs are spending money on Android ads even though the real buyers are on iOS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 You don't think people use Google products on iOS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 You don't think people use Google products on iOS? I'm talking about the purpose of Android. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Of course you are, it would totally undermine your argument otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Of course you are, it would totally undermine your argument otherwise. Given that my argument is about Android, it follow that I am talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now