What lessons can we learn from Google's failed projects (such as Google Glass and Google+) about innovation?

从Google这些看起来很失败的项目里，我们普通人或者想做点事的人能学到的东西其实特别实在，基本可以归结为几点大白话：

技术再牛，也得解决一个真实存在的问题。 Google Glass就是最好的例子。这东西刚出来的时候，所有人都觉得“哇，太酷了，未来科技！”但冷静下来想一想：我戴上它，到底能干嘛？它解决了我的什么痛点？是看导航方便了一点，还是拍照快了一点？为了这点“方便”，我得花一大笔钱，还得忍受别人异样的眼光。说白了，它更像一个极客的玩具，而不是一个大众消费品。创新不是为了炫技，而是为了让我们的生活、工作变得更简单、更美好。你得先找到一个足够“痛”的点，你的产品才是解药。
别跟用户习惯和“人情世故”对着干。 这一点在Google Glass和Google+上都体现得很明显。
- Google Glass：戴着它去跟朋友吃饭，人家会觉得你是不是在偷拍，很不自在。这就是“科技”和“人情”的冲突。一个产品如果让周围的人感到不适和被侵犯，那它就很难在社会上普及。大家给戴Glass的人起了个外号叫“Glasshole”（眼镜混蛋），这已经说明了问题。
- Google+：当时大家的朋友、家人、同学关系网都已经牢牢地建在Facebook（或者国内的人人网、QQ空间）上了。你让大家搬家到一个新平台，成本太高了。人们的社交习惯已经养成了，你没有一个“非搬不可”的理由，大家为什么要动呢？而且Google还强制把YouTube账号和Google+绑定，这种“霸王硬上弓”的做法让用户非常反感。你想想，你喜欢被强迫吗？
挑战巨头，要么拿出“核武器”，要么就绕着走。 Google+想挑战的是当时如日中天的Facebook。但它拿出的功能，比如“圈子”（Circles），虽然理念上更先进（可以把好友分组），但对普通用户来说太复杂了，增加了使用负担。相比之下，Facebook的模式简单粗暴但有效。你要么就提供一个比对手好10倍的革命性体验，让用户觉得“我必须换”；要么就找一个巨头没注意到或者不屑于做的小领域，悄悄做大。想在别人的主场，用别人相似的规则去打败别人，几乎是不可能的。
时机不对，努力白费。 Google Glass在某种程度上也犯了这个错误。在那个年代，电池技术、显示技术、大众对隐私的理解都还没到那个份上。产品太超前，就像在没有路的沼泽地里开一辆法拉利，跑不起来。创新需要天时、地利、人和，有时候早一步是先驱，早三步就可能成先烈。

总而言之，Google的这些失败项目告诉我们，一个成功的创新= 好的技术 + 解决真问题 + 尊重用户习惯 + 恰当的时机。对于大公司来说，这些失败是昂贵的学费，技术和经验可以复用到其他地方。但对于我们普通人或者创业者来说，资源有限，犯不起这样的错，所以从他们的失败中吸取教训，就显得格外重要。

Here's the English translation:

The lessons ordinary people or those looking to build something can learn from Google's seemingly failed projects are actually very practical, and can basically be summarized into a few straightforward points:

No matter how advanced the technology, it must solve a real problem. Google Glass is the best example. When it first came out, everyone thought, "Wow, this is so cool, future tech!" But if you think about it calmly: what exactly could I do with it? What pain point did it solve for me? Was it slightly easier to navigate, or a bit faster to take photos? For this slight "convenience," I had to spend a lot of money and endure strange looks from others. Frankly, it was more like a geek's toy than a mass-market consumer product. Innovation isn't about showing off technology; it's about making our lives and work simpler and better. You must first find a sufficiently "painful" problem, and then your product becomes the solution.
Don't go against user habits and social norms. This point was clearly evident in both Google Glass and Google+.
- Google Glass: Wearing it to dinner with friends would make people feel like you might be secretly recording them, which is uncomfortable. This is the conflict between "technology" and "human interaction." If a product makes those around you feel uneasy or violated, it will be difficult for it to gain widespread adoption. People even coined the term "Glasshole" for those wearing Glass, which already speaks volumes.
- Google+: At that time, everyone's network of friends, family, and classmates was already firmly established on Facebook (or Renren and QQ Zone in China). Asking everyone to migrate to a new platform was too costly. People's social habits were already formed; if you didn't provide a "must-move" reason, why would anyone bother? Furthermore, Google forcibly linked YouTube accounts with Google+, a "heavy-handed" approach that greatly annoyed users. Think about it, do you like being forced?
To challenge a giant, either bring a "nuclear weapon" or find another path. Google+ aimed to challenge Facebook, which was then at its peak. However, the features it offered, such as "Circles," while conceptually more advanced (allowing friends to be grouped), were too complex for average users, increasing the burden of use. In contrast, Facebook's model was simple, crude, but effective. You either offer a revolutionary experience that is 10 times better than the competitor's, making users feel "I must switch"; or you find a niche that giants haven't noticed or bothered with, and quietly grow it. Trying to beat someone on their home turf, using similar rules, is almost impossible.
Bad timing renders efforts futile. Google Glass, to some extent, also made this mistake. In that era, battery technology, display technology, and the public's understanding of privacy were not yet mature enough. The product was too far ahead of its time, like driving a Ferrari in a swamp with no roads – it just couldn't get going. Innovation requires the right time, place, and people. Sometimes being one step ahead makes you a pioneer, but being three steps ahead might make you a martyr.

In summary, Google's failed projects teach us that successful innovation = good technology + solving real problems + respecting user habits + appropriate timing. For large companies, these failures are expensive tuition, and the technology and experience can be repurposed elsewhere. But for ordinary people or entrepreneurs, resources are limited, and they cannot afford such mistakes, so learning from these failures becomes especially crucial.