4 ms·
Not to mention, one tenth the retail cost.
by binarymax 10y ago
Not 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.