3 ms·

Google Glass and Spectacles are not even close to the same customer base. Google glass was a luxury beta product for techies with lots of disposable income. Spe

Google Glass and Spectacles are not even close to the same customer base. Google glass was a luxury beta product for techies with lots of disposable income. Spectacles are targeted towards 15-25yr olds. Google Glass users wanted to use the "future" of technology where as spectacles users want to Snap and share more. I'm surprised their hasn't been nearly the same adverse reaction to spectacles as there was to glass. Maybe we haven't seen it yet as they haven't been released, but people hated the potential of Google Glass sharing pictures and videos of people without them knowing. Maybe we've changed as a culture enough in these few years.

reneherse 10y ago
Good observations. The difference with Spectacles is playfulness and fun: kids goofing off for the camera on a beach vs normcore cyborg narrating on a bluetooth headset. A potential weakness of Spectacles as a product is that it augments only non-selfie, "extraverted" photography. So it doesn't engage the selfie obsessed side of the userbase as much as the phone-based AR filters do. I haven't been a fan of Snapchat, but now I'm curious to see how users react to this product.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bogomipz 10y ago
But do the majority of 15 - 25 Snapchat users have $130 to spend on these? I'm asking because I don't know. Also sunglasses seem to get forgotten/lost somewhat regularly no?
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Designer sunglasses can easily cost more than $130 and some 15-25 year old people do find the money to spend on them. So the real question is more has Snapchat and its functionality built enough of a cachet to be valued as highly as something like a Ray Ban. I do wonder about whether people will find the video-recording-and-sharing aspect creepy. It might help a bit that people don't associate Snapchat as "instantly on the web forever" compared to other services. We'll see.

reneherse 10y ago

Good observations. The difference with Spectacles is playfulness and fun: kids goofing off for the camera on a beach vs normcore cyborg narrating on a bluetooth headset. A potential weakness of Spectacles as a product is that it augments only non-selfie, "extraverted" photography. So it doesn't engage the selfie obsessed side of the userbase as much as the phone-based AR filters do. I haven't been a fan of Snapchat, but now I'm curious to see how users react to this product.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bogomipz 10y ago

But do the majority of 15 - 25 Snapchat users have $130 to spend on these? I'm asking because I don't know. Also sunglasses seem to get forgotten/lost somewhat regularly no?

soundwave106 10y ago
Designer sunglasses can easily cost more than $130 and some 15-25 year old people do find the money to spend on them. So the real question is more has Snapchat and its functionality built enough of a cachet to be valued as highly as something like a Ray Ban. I do wonder about whether people will find the video-recording-and-sharing aspect creepy. It might help a bit that people don't associate Snapchat as "instantly on the web forever" compared to other services. We'll see.