[Andy Ihnatko on Twitter](http://twitter.com/Ihnatko/status/218051100333457410):
>Interesting that Google is being so open about Glass dev process. Prob because they’ve no idea how to turn this neat idea into a product.

I’d clarify that statement as such: Google has no idea how to turn this idea into something that is neat, let alone an actual product. When the iPad launched Apple knew they had something really neat on their hands. The best they could reckon, at the time, was that it was a fantastic tool for browsing the web and consuming content.

What they didn’t think of, imagine, or conceive was some of the amazing apps that would eventually come out. Once they saw those, that’s when Apple figured out how to market the device as a mass market consumer good.

That’s when the iPad became a hit.

With Google Glass I am not sure we even have a neat idea to start such a fire because I have yet to see one feature that makes me want it for even a one-off scenario.

Which brings us to [Erin Biba’s comment on Twitter](http://twitter.com/alexismadrigal/status/218051609433882625):

>Google Glass is the Segway of wearable accessories.

That’s another interesting comparison, because the Segway is both neat and a product. However the Segway is not a mass market product because of the limited utility and the price. The Segway works well for security guards at malls and events, but is pretty much ridiculous for everything else. Luckily the segment that Segways do work well for are also segments that can and *will* spend that money on a Segway.

Compare that to Google Glass, where it is going to be $1,500 for a pair. So now Glass is an idea that may or may not be ‘neat’, has no fit as product (yet), and is limiting itself to a small market based on a high entry price.

Sounds like a winner.