3 ms·

IMO, Google glasses were an obtrusive form of eyewear with limited AR capabilities—with a price tag of $1500. Spectacles are $130.

• adamnemecek 10y ago
  You are right they are quite a bit cheaper but they are just as obtrusive. I think that glasses (esp. dioptric) are fundamentally a part of your identity and I think that most people fundamentally hate associating themselves with a company not to come across as a 'fanboys'. Like wearing the snapchat glasses projects a certain type of persona which I think most people might prefer not to project. I think that they should be marketed as "cool glasses (that also record video)" as opposed to "video recording glasses". "Video recording glasses" are a gimmick, "cool glasses (that also record video)" could be timeless.
  • nateburke 10y ago
    My initial impression upon seeing the spectacles was that they had two cameras. They don't, but the impression points to a key design choice that was, IMHO, fatally absent from Google glass: attempted symmetry. I think that people will be more likely to wear the spectacles for this reason--they can actually pass for a pair of somewhat ostentatious sunglasses to an unknowing observer because of their near-symmetry, vs. Google glass, the mere shape of which screamed "BORG!"
  • CN7R 10y ago
    Have you heard of Raybans? The merger of fashion and technology is possible, considering the existing fanboyism of some products and design of smart watches.