5 ms·

Take a long, deep breath. Then take a few steps backwards, so you can take the scene in with a slightly broader perspective. Now hark back to how many times som

by n72 10y ago

Take a long, deep breath. Then take a few steps backwards, so you can take the scene in with a slightly broader perspective. Now hark back to how many times someone has been breathlessly been compared to Steve Jobs and how many times the person who has made that comparison has ended up looking silly. Let's give Evan a few years before we start fanboying him.

Kiro 10y ago
> Let's give Evan a few years before we start fanboying him. Apart from the norm that fanboying is bad, why? Isn't his resume pretty good already?
- n72 10y ago
  Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
yolesaber 10y ago
LMAO right? These are literally shitty-looking sunglasses with a ten second loop camera on them that's only usable with Snapchat. These will be handed out at fancy NYC/LA/SF parties where people will play with them for a minute or so before putting them back down and going on their phones.
- flycaliguy 10y ago
  Ever use the first iPhone? It could barely make PHONE calls. It was a terrible phone.
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    Are you seriously comparing a pair of shitty-looking sunglasses to the iPhone? These are sunglasses that take a ten second video that is tied to Snapchat. They cost 130 bucks and immediately signal that you are a techie douchebag because that's what people still associate video-taking glasses with. It is literally a novelty toy that is using a WSJ article (native content advertising) to make it seem like a revolutionary technology / something cool. No one is going to buy these.
    - flycaliguy 10y ago
      I was comparing the fact that Apple tossed out an unfinished, first iteration of a product that eventually became polished tech. I'm pointing out that the limitations on these glasses are along the same path. Seems like a bunch of people didn't catch my point, I'll try and be more clear in the future.
    - Kiro 10y ago
      What's with the hate? You realize there's a possibility you will stand corrected?
      - yolesaber 10y ago
        OH NO i'll be wrong on the internet
    - berberous 10y ago
      I spoke to a 25 year old girl this morning that is not a techie, but likes Snapchat, and she had already heard of the glasses and wanted a pair. Sample size of one, but I'm pretty confident that non-techies will buy them. The question is whether it can grow to anything bigger than instant film Polaroids, which people also buy and enjoy using at parties, etc.
      - Fricken 10y ago
        I think the glasses are stupid, but then again, I thought the whole idea behind snapchat was stupid to begin with, yet here we are. Obviously my finger is not on the pulse of today's youth. I don't think the kids today will be too inclined to shell out $130 for these gimmicky things, but my judgement on such matters is demonstrably terrible.
        TAForObvReasons 10y ago
        Not a kid, but I absolutely love the idea of a camera at eye level that can capture what I'm seeing. Many times I've missed random animal sightings or funny moments because I didn't have a camera at the ready (and sometimes it takes a while to dig out the phone).
- TAForObvReasons 10y ago
  Try to understand the essence of the problem and the whole thing makes perfect sense. Problem: many spontaneous moments are missed because the phone is not immediately accessible. The phone is in the pocket and it takes seconds to dig out the phone and switch to the camera app, and by that time I missed the moment. Solution: put a camera at line of sight. Make it super simple to capture. When you phrase it as a camera you mount to your head, it sounds super creepy. The sunglass is a natural vehicle for the camera since most people have sunglasses and wear them when it is sunny outside. It allows for validation testing of the idea, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a prescription version if the demand is there.
  - dingaling 10y ago
    > Solution: put a camera at line of sight. Make it super simple to capture. But these are sunglasses which are unlikely to be worn much indoors. So one might still have to fumble in a bag for the glasses, don them to put the camera in line of sight and then take a snap. What really irks me is the overloading of the term 'spectacles'. These are absolutely not spectacles as commonly understood: "lenses to help a person's sight". But henceforth, any time anyone wants to search for spectacles they'll have to include terms to exclude Snapchat's gadget. Surely they could have saved some of the money they spent on buying spectacles.com and invented a unique name. Snapticles? ( Google lists four hits for that word right now ).
    - richardboegli 10y ago
      "lenses to help a person's sight" But, if the lenses people see the world through is Snapchat then this makes perfect sense.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - phamilton 10y ago
      A Spectacle is also a performance or something worth watching. One could say many moments in our lives are spectacles that few people see, and recording those would help us share. It's really not a bad name.
- x2f10 10y ago
  Is keithwhor's comment not sarcastic? Read it again.

by n72 10y ago

Kiro 10y ago

> Let's give Evan a few years before we start fanboying him. Apart from the norm that fanboying is bad, why? Isn't his resume pretty good already?

n72 10y ago
Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

yolesaber 10y ago

LMAO right? These are literally shitty-looking sunglasses with a ten second loop camera on them that's only usable with Snapchat. These will be handed out at fancy NYC/LA/SF parties where people will play with them for a minute or so before putting them back down and going on their phones.

flycaliguy 10y ago
Ever use the first iPhone? It could barely make PHONE calls. It was a terrible phone.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  Are you seriously comparing a pair of shitty-looking sunglasses to the iPhone? These are sunglasses that take a ten second video that is tied to Snapchat. They cost 130 bucks and immediately signal that you are a techie douchebag because that's what people still associate video-taking glasses with. It is literally a novelty toy that is using a WSJ article (native content advertising) to make it seem like a revolutionary technology / something cool. No one is going to buy these.
  - flycaliguy 10y ago
    I was comparing the fact that Apple tossed out an unfinished, first iteration of a product that eventually became polished tech. I'm pointing out that the limitations on these glasses are along the same path. Seems like a bunch of people didn't catch my point, I'll try and be more clear in the future.
  - Kiro 10y ago
    What's with the hate? You realize there's a possibility you will stand corrected?
    - yolesaber 10y ago
      OH NO i'll be wrong on the internet
  - berberous 10y ago
    I spoke to a 25 year old girl this morning that is not a techie, but likes Snapchat, and she had already heard of the glasses and wanted a pair. Sample size of one, but I'm pretty confident that non-techies will buy them. The question is whether it can grow to anything bigger than instant film Polaroids, which people also buy and enjoy using at parties, etc.
    - Fricken 10y ago
      I think the glasses are stupid, but then again, I thought the whole idea behind snapchat was stupid to begin with, yet here we are. Obviously my finger is not on the pulse of today's youth. I don't think the kids today will be too inclined to shell out $130 for these gimmicky things, but my judgement on such matters is demonstrably terrible.
      - TAForObvReasons 10y ago
        Not a kid, but I absolutely love the idea of a camera at eye level that can capture what I'm seeing. Many times I've missed random animal sightings or funny moments because I didn't have a camera at the ready (and sometimes it takes a while to dig out the phone).
TAForObvReasons 10y ago
Try to understand the essence of the problem and the whole thing makes perfect sense. Problem: many spontaneous moments are missed because the phone is not immediately accessible. The phone is in the pocket and it takes seconds to dig out the phone and switch to the camera app, and by that time I missed the moment. Solution: put a camera at line of sight. Make it super simple to capture. When you phrase it as a camera you mount to your head, it sounds super creepy. The sunglass is a natural vehicle for the camera since most people have sunglasses and wear them when it is sunny outside. It allows for validation testing of the idea, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a prescription version if the demand is there.
- dingaling 10y ago
  > Solution: put a camera at line of sight. Make it super simple to capture. But these are sunglasses which are unlikely to be worn much indoors. So one might still have to fumble in a bag for the glasses, don them to put the camera in line of sight and then take a snap. What really irks me is the overloading of the term 'spectacles'. These are absolutely not spectacles as commonly understood: "lenses to help a person's sight". But henceforth, any time anyone wants to search for spectacles they'll have to include terms to exclude Snapchat's gadget. Surely they could have saved some of the money they spent on buying spectacles.com and invented a unique name. Snapticles? ( Google lists four hits for that word right now ).
  - richardboegli 10y ago
    "lenses to help a person's sight" But, if the lenses people see the world through is Snapchat then this makes perfect sense.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - phamilton 10y ago
    A Spectacle is also a performance or something worth watching. One could say many moments in our lives are spectacles that few people see, and recording those would help us share. It's really not a bad name.
x2f10 10y ago
Is keithwhor's comment not sarcastic? Read it again.