Engineering triumphs meeting market failures Innovation is a brutal business. In the garage, we respect a well-built engine even if the car it’s in is a total lemon. The history of technology mirrors this reality. Some of the most groundbreaking ideas ever conceived ended up in the scrap heap not because the engineering was flawed, but because the timing was off, the business model was broken, or the world simply wasn't ready to adapt. When you look under the hood of a failed project like the GM EV1 or the Apple Newton, you don't just see junk—you see the blueprints for the future we’re living in now. Understanding why these pioneers stalled is the only way to ensure the next build actually crosses the finish line. The intentional sabotage of the first electric revolution Long before Tesla dominated the highways, General Motors built a car that was genuinely ahead of its time: the EV1. This wasn't a golf cart; it was a serious piece of engineering with a dedicated fanbase. By 2003, later models featured nickel-metal hydride batteries that pushed the range to an impressive 140 miles—more than enough for the average commuter today, let alone twenty years ago. The car featured futuristic tech like keyless entry and ignition via a personal access code, a feature that still feels modern. However, General Motors didn't just discontinue the program; they actively destroyed it. Despite lessees begging to buy their cars at the end of their terms, General Motors repossessed and crushed almost every single unit. The reasons were purely clinical and financial. Dealers hated the cars because EVs don't require the high-margin maintenance—oil changes, spark plugs, and exhaust work—that keeps service bays profitable. Furthermore, General Motors sold the battery patents to Texaco, an oil giant that used the intellectual property to block other manufacturers from developing similar technology. It was a masterclass in corporate survival at the expense of innovation. Why the Apple Newton failed where the iPad soared In 1993, Apple released the Newton MessagePad, the device that birthed the term "Personal Digital Assistant" (PDA). Under CEO John Sculley, Apple attempted to replace the paper day planner with a handheld touchscreen computer. It was a massive gamble on a future that hadn't arrived yet. The device featured handwriting recognition that was supposed to be its killer feature, but in practice, it was a glitchy mess that became a punchline in popular culture. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he famously killed the Newton. He hated the stylus—joking that if you see a stylus, you know they blew it—and he viewed the project as a distraction from the company's core mission. But the DNA of the Newton didn't vanish. The concept of a mobile, touch-based productivity tool eventually evolved into the iPhone and the iPad. The Newton failed because it was an awkward middle child: too big for a pocket, too small for real work, and burdened by a user interface that the hardware couldn't yet support. Google Glass and the social cost of wearable tech In 2012, Google co-founder Sergey Brin introduced Google Glass with a high-octane skydive stunt that promised a world of augmented reality. The hardware was impressive—a high-resolution display floating in your peripheral vision and a capable camera—but it lacked a clear purpose. Unlike the modern Ray-Ban Meta, which disguise their tech as fashion, Google Glass looked like a prop from a low-budget sci-fi movie. The failure here wasn't the circuit board; it was the social friction. Users were labeled "glassholes," and the device's ability to record at a moment's notice led to bans in bars and theaters. It was an invasive technology released before society had established the etiquette for it. Today, we see Meta succeeding with similar tech by stripping away the distracting display and focusing on AI integration and aesthetics. Google had the right engine, but they put it in a body that no one wanted to be seen in. Virtual Boy and the isolation of early VR Nintendo is usually the king of gaming ergonomics, but the Virtual Boy was a rare total failure. Created by Gunpei Yokoi, the legend behind the Game Boy, the system was rushed to market to fill a gap in Nintendo's release schedule. The result was a monochrome red nightmare that caused headaches and required players to hunch over a table in total isolation. In the garage, if you rush a build, you end up with a blown gasket. Nintendo rushed the Virtual Boy, and it effectively ended Gunpei Yokoi's thirty-year career at the company. It was a "portable" system that wasn't portable and a "social" gaming machine that was inherently isolating. It took decades for the processing power and display technology of Meta and Sony to catch up to the vision Yokoi originally had. Innovation requires more than just good parts Precision under the hood only matters if the car is going somewhere people want to go. Whether it’s IBM ViaVoice predicting the rise of Siri or the Microsoft SPOT Watch setting the stage for the Apple Watch, failure is often just a delayed success. These products proved that being first is rarely as important as being right. As mechanics of progress, we have to appreciate the risk-takers who built the failures that taught us how to win. The next time you see a "bad" idea, look closer—you might just be looking at the future of the industry.
Google Glass
Products
Oct 2019 • 1 videos
High activity month for Google Glass. Chris Williamson among the most active voices, with 1 videos across 1 sources.
Oct 2022 • 1 videos
High activity month for Google Glass. Chris Williamson among the most active voices, with 1 videos across 1 sources.
Nov 2024 • 1 videos
High activity month for Google Glass. The Riding Unicorns Podcast among the most active voices, with 1 videos across 1 sources.
Dec 2025 • 1 videos
High activity month for Google Glass. The Prof G Pod – Scott Galloway among the most active voices, with 1 videos across 1 sources.
May 2026 • 2 videos
High activity month for Google Glass. Adam Savage’s Tested and Speeed among the most active voices, with 2 videos across 2 sources.
- May 21, 2026
- May 15, 2026
- Dec 10, 2025
- Nov 20, 2024
- Oct 15, 2022
From Storytelling to Story Living Traditional narratives have always relied on a fundamental separation between the observer and the observed. Whether you are reading a book or watching a film on a flat screen, a physical and psychological barrier remains. Dr. Sarah Jones, a pioneer in the field of immersive media, suggests that we are entering an era of story living. In this new paradigm, the audience is no longer a passive recipient of a told story but a participant rooted in the experiential center of a digital world. This shift represents more than just a technological upgrade; it is a fundamental change in how we process information and form emotional connections with our environment. By removing the frame, immersive technology like Virtual Reality (VR) forces us to confront a reality where our gaze is no longer directed by a filmmaker. In a traditional movie, the director chooses the frame and tells you exactly where to look. In a 360-degree environment, the power shifts to the individual. You have the autonomy to look behind you, to focus on the periphery, and to construct your own version of the narrative. This level of agency is what defines story living. It requires us to move away from rigid storyboards and toward the creation of "atmospheres" or "experiences" that the participant inhabits. Breaking the Conventions of the Flat Screen A common pitfall for creators entering the immersive space is the tendency to apply old ways of thinking to new platforms. We see this frequently in journalism and entertainment, where 360-degree cameras are used merely to record a scene that would have been more effectively captured in a flat format. This approach is lazy and fails to respect the unique potential of the medium. To truly utilize VR, one must start with a blank canvas and ask what can only be done because of this technology. For instance, capturing the chaotic energy of a place like Chungking Mansions in Hong Kong requires more than just high resolution. It requires intentional choices in editing and motion to simulate the feeling of being disjointed and uneasy. By breaking traditional editing conventions—such as using moving shots or jarring cuts that would typically cause motion sickness—a creator can actually evoke a specific psychological state in the viewer. The goal is to capture a feeling rather than a sequence of events. When we focus on the experience rather than the plot, we allow the participant to find their own meaning within the chaos. The Hardware Hurdle: Resolution and Presence One of the primary barriers to widespread adoption remains the technical limitations of current hardware. Many users notice a significant drop in visual fidelity when moving from a 4K television to a headset like the Oculus Go or Oculus Quest. While a camera like the Insta360 One X may capture footage in 5.7K, those pixels are stretched across a 360-degree sphere. This means the actual resolution visible to the human eye at any given moment is significantly lower than what we have become accustomed to on our mobile devices or monitors. However, the psychology of presence often compensates for these technical shortcomings. After a few minutes of immersion, the human brain begins to adjust. We stop noticing the individual pixels and start reacting to the virtual environment as if it were real. This is why a cartoonish character in a boxing simulator can eventually feel as threatening as a real opponent. The inclusion of haptics—vibrations and sensory feedback—tricks the mind into believing in the physical reality of the digital space. As technology progresses toward 5G connectivity and better rendering capabilities, these hurdles will diminish, making the transition between the physical and virtual worlds increasingly seamless. The Empathy Machine and the Ethics of Influence There is a growing discourse around VR being an "empathy machine." Because the technology allows us to occupy different bodies and perspectives—such as experiencing homelessness or gender swapping—it has a documented ability to change perceptions and political views. Research from labs like the Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab suggests that immersive experiences create a deeper, more lasting impact on behavior than traditional information campaigns. When we live through a situation, the memory is stored differently in our brains than when we simply hear about it. This power comes with a dark side. If a technology can drive empathy, it can also be used for manipulation, brain hacking, or the reinforcement of harmful biases. Unlike social media, which creates echo chambers through algorithms and two-dimensional screens, immersive technology has a much higher "ceiling" for behavioral change. The visceral nature of these experiences makes it harder for the conscious mind to maintain a distance. We must consider how this unregulated industry will be governed to prevent the misuse of subliminal messaging and psychological influence. As the genie leaves the bottle, the legislation is already lagging behind the potential for deep-seated mental shifts. Social VR and the New Frontier of Harassment As we move toward shared virtual spaces, we encounter a new set of social challenges. Platforms like AltspaceVR or the social layers of Oculus allow people to interact as avatars, but this anonymity often brings out the worst in human behavior. Reports of harassment in social VR are alarmingly high, with women being particularly targeted. The problem is that our bodies respond to virtual proximity with the same visceral intensity as real-world interactions. When a digital avatar invades your personal space, the feeling of violation is real, even if the "bits" aren't physically touching. Developers are attempting to mitigate this through "safety bubbles" and personal space restrictions, but the underlying issue remains: we are still learning how to exist in a world where the lines between the digital and the physical are blurred. Our brains struggle to distinguish between a virtual threat and a real one because our visual system, which comprises a massive portion of our sensory cells, takes the lead. Whether it is through Augmented Reality (AR) overlays like the Microsoft HoloLens or fully immersive headsets, the future of our social fabric depends on our ability to maintain our humanity in a world that is increasingly rendered and simulated. Conclusion: Navigating the Immersive Future The trajectory of immersive technology points toward a world where the "frame" disappears entirely. We are moving away from the clunky, intrusive headsets of today toward more elegant solutions like AR glasses or even smart contact lenses. While Apple and other tech giants pivot toward augmented reality for its daily utility, the profound psychological impact of full immersion remains the ultimate frontier of storytelling. As we embrace these tools, we must do so with a high degree of self-awareness, recognizing that our greatest power lies in how we choose to use these technologies to foster genuine connection rather than isolation or manipulation.
Oct 10, 2019