Zitat des Tages von Astro Teller:
Actually, that issue of 'Don't be evil' is probably the number one reason we throw out ideas.
I think wearables in general have, as their best calling, to better understand our current state and needs and to express those back to the world.
It comes up over and over and over again that a ten times increase in the weight-oriented density of batteries or the volume metric, the space-oriented density of batteries, would enable so many other moonshots that that's one that just constantly comes up over and over again, and we will start that moonshot if we can find a great idea.
Our goal is not to produce immediate results. We've been tasked with producing long-term results. That means that there's more risk in any individual thing we take on. But we still aspire to a strong return on investment.
If we want to help Google become something meaningfully different in the future, then that's more likely to happen if we focus on the physical world instead.
We're going to look back and wonder why we had to micro-control our cars.
I think we'll see, not only with Glass, but the watch wearables, with the contact lens, that each of these things have their own best purpose, but it will take more on our part and society's part to figure out what that is.
VisiCalc and WordPerfect were the killer apps of their day, but Google and Facebook make them look small in comparison.
Moonshot thinking starts with picking a big problem: something huge, long existing, or on a global scale.
The great decision was the Explorer program. The thing we did not do well is that we allowed and somewhat encouraged too much exposure to the program.
Let's make health care a meritocracy. Access to the best care goes to people who did what they could to avoid becoming ill.
I'm a father to four kids, so it bothers me that even though our children think big naturally, our society systematically trains them out of thinking that way.
There's this open question of what Google is going to be a decade or more from now. Google X isn't the only answer to that question, but it was built as a place to do some of the exploration to find some great new problems for Google to tackle.
It is the essence of innovation to fail most of the time.
Most of us have to spend a lot of energy to learn how to drive a car. Then we have to spend the rest of our lives over-concentrating as we drive and text and eat a burrito and put on makeup. As a result, 30,000 people die every year in a car accident in the U.S.
Moonshots live in that place between audacious projects and pure science fiction.
When we try to make a car that drives itself, we believe - whether we're right or not - we believe that there would be strong net positive benefit to the world if cars could drive themselves safer than people could.
We are proposing that there is value in a totally new product category and a totally new set of questions. Just like the Apple II proposed, 'Would you reasonably want a computer in your home if you weren't an accountant or professional?' That is the question Glass is asking, and I hope in the end that is how it will be judged.
The Explorer edition of Glass wasn't for everyone, but the Explorer program pushed us to find a wide range of near-term applications and uses for something like Glass.
People text when they're meant to actually be driving. So imagine what they do when they think the car's got it under control.
We've got rings, glasses, we wear things for armor, for protection from the elements, to signal our status to other people. And we're going to co-opt a lot of those things, where wearables are going to end up being the interface between us in the world.
Rather than thinking of ourselves as a computer, and trying to give you computer-like functionality, it's better to start from the understanding that this is a pair of glasses, and say, 'How smart can we make these glasses for you?'
Find some fun way to get a little more oil on your hands or mud on your boots. Sometimes, that's what it takes to take down some of the really big problems.
I believe that the right thing for us to do, as much as we can and without confusing people, is to talk about how we're doing, the things that are going well but also the things that aren't going well.
Why shoot for the moon? It matters because when you try to do something radically hard, you approach the problem differently than when you try to make something incrementally better.
I'm a compulsive storyteller, an avid reader, and have always nurtured the secret goal of spending my life as a writer.
When technology reaches that level of invisibility in our lives, that's our ultimate goal. It vanishes into our lives. It says, 'You don't have to do the work; I'll do the work.'
We don't take on Google Glass or the self-driving car project or Project Loon unless we think that on a risk-adjusted basis, it's worth Google's money to do it.
Our culture already has a number of well known stories about artificial life and non-human intelligence. In 'Exegesis,' I've tried to not only tell a new and engaging story but also to comment on those well known stories through the details of my novel.
When you attack a problem as though it were solvable, even though you don't know how to solve it, you will be shocked with what you come up with. It's 100 times more worth it. It's never 100 times harder.
People do really stupid things while driving.
I don't believe a mistake-free learning environment exists.
If software's the only thing in your bag of tools, I'm not going to give you great odds.
Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a jetpack that wasn't a death trap? The problem is that it is going to be so power inefficient. I just couldn't live with that... it would be as loud as a motorcycle.
We need to make sure that the things we are already working on turn out to do the things we believe they can do and creating value both for the world and ultimately for Google.