Astro Teller Quotes

Leaps of innovation require a bravery that borders on absurdity.

D) sometimes everyone ends up happier Question 5: True Love:

Use creativity and storytelling as your main muscle instead of smartness.

People do really stupid things while driving.

It is the essence of innovation to fail most of the time.

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.'

Really, having people who have different mental perspectives is what's important.

I personally have a philosophy around authenticity and vulnerability.

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.

Let's make health care a meritocracy. Access to the best care goes to people who did what they could to avoid becoming ill.

Making a moonshot is almost more an exercise in creativity than it is in technology.

The cycling helmet can save your life, but it doesn't look good and tends to ruin your hair.

Ultimately, a timeless story has to be about the human condition.

The assumption that humans could be a reliable back up for the system was a fallacy!

You make a ton of progress by making a ton of mistakes.

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.

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.

Failing doesn't have to mean not succeeding. It can be, 'Hey we tried that. We can go forward, smarter.'

Failures are cheap if you do them first. Failures are expensive if you do them at the end.

It's crazy that you have to tell your phone or your computer or your house or your car 'It's me!' hundreds of times a day. Wearables will solve that problem.

Going from an error rate of 25 meters in GPS to 2.5 meters is huge. Going to 25 centimeters is going to matter just as much.

Google[x]'s Focus on the Physical World

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.

A ten-times increase in the weight-oriented density of batteries would enable so many other moonshots, if we can find a great idea. We just haven't found one yet.

I'm a compulsive storyteller, an avid reader, and have always nurtured the secret goal of spending my life as a writer.

Google Glass is the wearable computer that responds to voice commands and displays information on a visual display.

We know in our hearts that technology at its best should make us feel even more human than we currently feel. Sometimes it makes us feel less human.

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.

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.

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 you're shooting to make the world 10% better, you're in a smartness contest with everyone else in the world - and you're going to lose. There are too many smart people in the world.

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.

We are serious as a heart attack about making the world a better place.

The moonshot for Google Glass is to harmonize the physical and digital worlds. It is specifically to find a way to help people be naturally, elegantly situated, physical and digitally, at the same time.

Building intelligent machines can teach us about our minds - about who we are - and those lessons will make our world a better place. To win that knowledge, though, our species will have to trade in another piece of its vanity.

Moonshot thinking starts with picking a big problem: something huge, long existing, or on a global scale.

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.

We're going to look back and wonder why we had to micro-control our cars.

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?'

We're excited about how tech can be used to get tech out of the way.

If you want to explore things you haven't explored, having people who look just like you and think just like you is not the best way.

Google is already overflowing with incredibly creative bright groups already working on lots of the software problems of the world.

When you go into a bar, there are hundreds and hundreds of cameras in that bar - many of them installed by that bar. They might be checking something or taking a picture of you.

Phones would not be better if they could be cooler looking, if they could weight less, or if they could have more battery. Phones would be better if we didn't have to carry them around.

The world is not limited by IQ. We are all limited by bravery and creativity.

There is no law of physics that says just because we're connected, there has to be this schism between our physical lives and our digital lives.

Without getting into specifics, I assure you we are looking at very substantial opportunities for Loon - Google-scale opportunities.

The real goal of AI is to understand and build devices that can perceive, reason, act, and learn at least as well as we can.

To say a scientist is not at all responsible is wrong. But to say that someone who invents a piece of knowledge or technology is responsible for all future uses is ridiculous. It doesn't have to be that binary.

Doing exercise without monitoring yourself will be rare in the future of wearable technology.

I do believe that making a factory for innovation, a moon-shot factory, is possible.

We should be focused on making the world a better place, and once we do that, the money will come back and find us.

I don't believe a mistake-free learning environment exists.

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 future is all about leading a stress-free life and having all the solutions for all problems at hand.

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.