Astro Teller quotes:

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.

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

I'm a father to four kids, so it bothers me that even though our children think big naturally, our society systematically trains them out of thinking that way.

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

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

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

We don't have some message from God that gives us a list of what's good and what's not good. Obviously, we have to make our own flawed judgments about each thing.

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.

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

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.

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

I grant that people are generally uncomfortable with how fast privacy issues are changing in the world, but Google Glass is not going to move the needle on that.

I started my second company in 1999. BodyMedia was set up to take advantage of the future of wearables - sensors and computing worn on our bodies in any and all ways that could make our lives better.

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.

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

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

Moonshots live in that place between audacious projects and pure science fiction.

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.

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.

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.

It comes up over and over and over again that a ten times increase in the weight-oriented density of batteries or the volume metric, the space-oriented density of batteries, would enable so many other moonshots that that's one that just constantly comes up over and over again, and we will start that moonshot if we can find a great idea.

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.'

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.

Every day, hundreds of millions of people stab themselves, bleed, and then offer, like a sacrifice, to the glucose monitor they're carrying with them. It's such a bad user interface that even though in the medium-term it's life or death for these people, hundreds of millions of people don't engage in this user interface.

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.

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 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.

Most of us have to spend a lot of energy to learn how to drive a car. Then we have to spend the rest of our lives over-concentrating as we drive and text and eat a burrito and put on makeup. As a result, 30,000 people die every year in a car accident in the U.S.

Every time you drop the price by a factor of two, you roughly get a 10 times pickup of the number of people who will seriously consider buying it.

If software's the only thing in your bag of tools, I'm not going to give you great odds.

Glass is the world's worst spy camera. If you want to surreptitiously take photos, I would not use Glass.

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

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.

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.

Our culture already has a number of well known stories about artificial life and non-human intelligence. In 'Exegesis,' I've tried to not only tell a new and engaging story but also to comment on those well known stories through the details of my novel.

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

Anything which is a huge problem for humanity we'll sign up for, if we can find a way to fix it.

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

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

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.

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.

Here is the surprising truth: It's often easier to make something 10 times better than it is to make it 10 percent better.

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

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

The faster you can get your ideas in contact with the real world, the faster you can discover what is broken with your idea.

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

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

Failing doesn't have to mean not succeeding,

One of the missions of Google[x] is to use technology to get technology out of the way

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.

Leaps of innovation require a bravery that borders on absurdity.

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

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the science of how to get machines to do the things they do in the movies.

Google[x]'s Focus on the Physical World