What would Steve Jobs think about Project Glass (Google Glasses) | Hacker News Reader

What would Steve Jobs think about Project Glass (Google Glasses)

joylita.com

36 pointsthanashyam25 comments

Haha. If his biography is any indication, he'd shoot down the idea and then come out with glasses in 6 months and say how he thought of it.

To be serious, I think Steve Jobs would consider it. If you had the glasses and they worked as advertised, you wouldn't need an iPhone, and that threatens their core business. They'd have to either get in on it, and the iPhone5/6 would be eyewear, or find something to leap frog it.

Exactly. He wouldn't announce anything, and would deride competitors efforts until Apple had ironed out all the bugs.

Then he'd come up with some minimal produce with a great user interface which slotted in perfectly to Apple's ecosystem, then try to grow it into its own platform.

I believe the first half of 2012 will go down in the History of blogging as the era where simply mentionning Steve Jobs would be enough for your blog to get attention. Remember this shallow article that topped HN by comparing Linus Torvalds to Steve Jobs?

Heck, even an old (badly written) blog post of mine, dating from early 2010 and called "Steve Jobs the control freak" is attracting so much traffic now.

I'm complaining about this article. It's not interesting. It's not Steve Job's opinion on the Project Glass. It's simply relating an anecdote about Jobs giving a cocky answer to a cocky employee. But it mentions Jobs, it mentions Project Glass and ... BAM! Front page of HN for the day.

Given the amount that I still hear people gripe back and forth about Google stealing from Apple and vice-versa, I think it's at least mildly interesting to know that Jobs explicitly passed on this idea.

I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but if it became big, it would reflect differently on Jobs and his "foresight" knowing that he frowned on it. If it flops, he is "right".

Not important and probably tends towards petty fanboy credits, but fun to think about (and there is the thought that Jobs would shoot it down even if he liked it or considered it more later).

Steve Jobs initially also passed on the idea of the App Store and I think I recall he also ridiculed the idea of making a tablet.

He passed on many ideas, just to come back two weeks later to the same people with just the same idea and pitching it as the greatest thing known to man.

Just because he considered it shit once dies not mean that he wouldn't change his opinion later.

He didn't ridicule the idea of making a tablet. The iPad was actually created before the iPhone, but they shelved the tablet temporarily to focus on the phone market first.

I don't think he was against the idea itself, but against the oh-so-cliche "idea guys". A wearable heads-up display is not a new idea such that whoever thought of it would become rich. Heck, I wrote a mock-proposal about developing a heads-up display monocle earlier this year for a school project.

A heads-up display monocle? Now that's brilliant.

Call it "The Dandy" and make the tag line, "Don't make a spectacle of yourself."

The same criticism could have been levelled at headphones before they became mainstream. "You're likely to get hit by a car" etc.

I think wearing heads up displays sounds ridiculous. But shoving little speakers inside your head probably sounded pretty insane too.

You're still likely to get into an accident while driving/biking with headphones on, mainstream or not...

We really need to stop running product ideas through the Steve Jobs lens.

He was a product visionary - but I'm sure that he would also agree that he was only one man, and that there have been plenty of great products released which a) didn't conform to his Dieter Rams-inspired vision of design, and b) he didn't particularly care for.

If we continue down this road, we'll end up narrowing the scope for what constitutes great design.

Pseudo omniscient now departed being Steve Jobs as an imaginary evaluator for all things tends to get old fast. The "people will fall" argument is simply pathetic, even if it came from said person. I don't know what is the problem with bloggers lately but I am starting to find it amusing that the semigodic look up to, in memory of is going to bring many more "pearls" like this one. It's becoming one of those "what would Jesus do" meme things.

He'd ask whether it would help you to get a girlfriend, or whether it would just creep her out.

Based on this:

http://37signals.com/svn/posts/52-steve-jobs-just-put-it-in-...

Killer-app for HUD? -> Identify name by facial recognition!

Serious privacy implications, but as someone who doesn't do well connecting names and faces... absolutely a MUST-HAVE app!

Apple have patents in this space. So, presumably, he'd have thought it was interesting at least.

he'd be against it like he pretended to have no intention to create a phone, tablet or indeed X other device, if apple hadn't made one yet he would always contend there was no use for it.

I think there's truth to what you say... he had a knack for supporting what could be made well at the cutting edge of available tech. Head's up display is crap today not so much because of imaging tech into the eye being lacking (that could be built quickly) but rather because we can't compute enough useful stuff about what the eye sees and present it to the user for a compelling experience yet.

All this is changing... self-driving cars etc. but it's going to take time.

Why not link to the original post?

Which is ... ?

http://iamnotrobot.com/post/20511534816/steve-jobs-take-on-g...

very true. First instance I too felt the same. User will fall down or hit some vehicle/tree.

Just like how every time a runner glances at their GPS or watch they fall down or get hit by a car?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com