37 ms·
This fixes everything broken about Google Glass. It's almost disturbing how much more on point this is: Of _course_ they're sunglasses. Of _course_ it's focus
by primigenus 10y ago
This fixes everything broken about Google Glass. It's almost disturbing how much more on point this is:
Of _course_ they're sunglasses.
Of _course_ it's focused completely on video.
Of _course_ it's marketed as being about sharing your memories as you lived them.
Of _course_ you can only record 10 second videos at a time.
Of _course_ snaps automatically sync to the app.
Of _course_ they're designed to appeal to young fashionable people.
Of _course_ the charge lasts all day
This is one of those things where once you see it it's just obvious this is what it was supposed to be all along.
- nappy 10y agoThe product perfectly matches the brand, using technology in a way that fits user needs. I'll be excited to see how they do.
- binarymax 10y agoNot to mention, one tenth the retail cost.
- losteric 10y agoOne tenth the cost, one tenth the functionality. This is just a wireless camera for your smart phone. Point and shoot, that's it. It really reminds me of the cheap "Spy Sunglasses" I had as a kid. Glass had a camera but it was secondary. Glass was about AR, it was an interactive experience.
- bennesvig 10y agoI could see Snapchat's Spectacles evolving into that. They already have impressive facial and object recognition.
- agumonkey 10y agoExcept the market isn't ready for this. Impedance mismatch.
- 1_2__3 10y agoThis is the key that nobody seems willing to admit in this thread. For about fifty different reasons, most of which have been hashed out ad nauseum, these products are not what people want. The best you can say right now is that there's a prospective customer base who wants these kinds of products to be popular or even just not considered laughable, but we're not there yet.
- agumonkey 10y agoI guess it's a matter of what "want" means. People might want it in a few moments, and some see it as obvious but the actual people are not "in the mood" right now. Basically, what you just said (I only read the first sentence before typing heh).
- skybrian 10y agoYes, that's why it's different. People aren't ready to commit to wearing technology on their face. This is more like a costume or a party game, something to try out briefly in a friendly situation rather than commit to as a serious part of your look. It would be more popular if it were cheaper, but at least people can pass it around. It reminds me of the difference between Google Cardboard and real VR in the level of commitment required.
- hiou 10y agoAs Google learned with glass and Twitter still needs to learn: If you don't know what your product is for, your customer is unlikely to figure it out for you.
- o_____________o 10y agoTwitter might be a bad example, given that's exactly how it rose to popularity
- acdha 10y agoI think Twitter is a complicated example: it thrived when they were building a product which the developers wanted to use personally, which included embracing ideas which other developers had made for their users. The decline started when they started building what the VCs thought would be a winning lottery ticket: that was when they started closing the service and everything became focused the pitch to advertisers without enough balance on what their users might want.
- flogic 10y agoI think what killed Google Glass was more price and availability. Combined with concerns over the camera, that solidified the whole glasshole thing.
- GabrielF00 10y agoWhat about the problem of some people freaking out if they feel like they're being filmed?
- gcr 10y agoAgree. I would want to avoid people who use these. Unlike google glass, recording and broadcasting to the Internet is the only purpose for this product.