Yeah I mean you could be right, or the claims that they will still be releasing it, etc. could be face saving so as to not spook investors by the amount of money that was squandered on Glass. It's hard to know which one it is without further details like what division? How big is this division? What kind of timeline? etc.
Second: Glass isn't just any GoogleX project. It's the most publicized and most heavily bought into except perhaps the automatic car. Large investors may well expect Google to chase some dead-ends, but to kill them before they get to the prominence and public stature of Glass.
There are plenty of other reasons why Google might save face on Glass -- there might be internal morale reasons or the pride of an executive or wanting to keep competitors guessing.
Google didn't make glass the most publicized product, the media did.
I believe I read a comment here that basically said that Google didn't kill glass, they stopped selling it and moved the work to another division. So I think you could debate forever about whether this is considered "killing" google glass or not, but that's neither here nor there.
It's not the initial investment, it's the continued investment after it was obvious to most people that it was a bad idea. That's what wall street tends to have objections to.
If you are talking about Wall Street investors, then they have no excuse for investing in a company that loves pet projects. They have all the research at their fingertips. I could understand if Joe from down the street invested $25,000 in GOOG and is now pissed because he thought they would try harder or whatever.
