Serious because they invested $3.2 billion in cash, not 20% of a brilliant engineer's time or released a niche product for developers and techies. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of these, I'm just trying to clarify the difference between Google Glass (amazing technology, but not a huge investment or profitable endeavor for Google) and Nest (huge investment, already profitable and comparatively ubiquitous tech)
I agree, and I think the author of the article agrees that Motorola was another step in this direction, except it also came along with an added bonus of a large patent portfolio.
Google is currently burning R&D cash at some $10 billion+ a year. This money goes towards developing things like smart glasses, self-driving cars, etc. Calling these niche products or flippantly discounting them as 20% activities misses the whole notion that Google has been diversifying, for a very large price tag, for as long as they've been Google. There is nothing at all new in this, doubly so given the much larger purchase of Motorola (which the article flippantly writes off as a panic purchase for patents. I said Motorola had 10x the revenue of Nest, when actually it has about ~28x the revenue).
Have people not seen the mainstream Nexus 7 commercials? Chromebooks are being pitched to every-person.
There are too many write ups like this that want to take a complex and shifting reality, melt it down, and then make clear delineations and pivot points. The world doesn't work like that.
I think the point the article is making is that Google has, in the past, made lots of "little" long-shot bets, (making up the $10+ billion/yr R&D you mention.) The Nest purchase is Google pushing a LOT of chips into consumer tech.
I agree, and I think the author of the article agrees that Motorola was another step in this direction, except it also came along with an added bonus of a large patent portfolio.