4 ms·

> That’s why the first memorable photos of Spectacles weren’t shot by Scoble, but by famous fashion photographer Karl Lagerfeld. How soon we forget: Google Gla

> That’s why the first memorable photos of Spectacles weren’t shot by Scoble, but by famous fashion photographer Karl Lagerfeld. How soon we forget: Google Glass actually collaborated with Diane von Furstenberg (a famous fashion designer) and did a launch party at New York Fashion Week. https://www.fastcompany.com/3001142/google-glass-hits-runway-fashion-week https://www.fastcompany.com/3001142/google-glass-hits-runway... But Google positioned Glass as a platform for apps, meaning they had to get devs in the loop, while Spectacles are intended for precisely one thing: Snapchat.

makapuf 10y ago
Besides, Karl lagerfeld is a famous fashion designer (couturier) that happens to take photos, not a photographer.
- alexandersingh 10y ago
  I think he'd disagree with you :P
intoverflow2 10y ago
>How soon we forget: Google Glass actually collaborated with Diane von Furstenberg (a famous fashion designer) and did a launch party at New York Fashion Week. They still courted the tech press massively though, none of us remember that fashion week launch. But we all remember the guy screaming in the shower and Sergey on stage wearing Glass with Crocs.
edblarney 10y ago
Even though G*Glasses were 'in a fashion' show doesn't mean in any way there were positioned in the proper aspirational way. Though yes, I agree they had to get devs in the loop 'because apps'. Snapchat is almost proper consumer marketing company. Google is a tech company - and they had absolutely no idea how to market and position those glasses to consumers.
- trymas 10y ago
  > Google is a tech company - and they had absolutely no idea how to market and position those glasses to consumers. wat. 1. G-glass != snapchat spectacles. 2. IMHO google tried to create new accessory - smart glasses, they first wanted to introduce it to developers to create apps for it. 3. Either: 3.1. Google saw that it was not worth it at that time. Google is in business of making money after all and not in business of making selfish and shameless teenagers happy. 3.2. The idea was burned down by privacy concerns. G-glass became recognizable enough that users won't use because public will dismiss them due to privacy reasons and vice versa. I loathe 'startups' like snapchat (though I understand there's money when such big user base takes pictures/videos of everything around them), but IMHO it's a matter of time when teenagers will grab another new and hip service to scream their daily lives to the world and all 'genius of marketing' will disappear.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    If they wold like hotcakes 3.1 would not matter and 3.2 would be rectified enough to assuage the plebes. Your point 'they tried to create a new accessory': why is a tech company trying to create an 'accessory' that nobody wants, and is completely out of their domain? Snapchat is very intelligently extending their brand and user experience a little bit. Google was pushing tech. Things that we wear, are part of our culture, they are about fashion, trends, and to some degree functionality. Google his a tech company that has absolutely no clue how to do consumer marketing - this is evident in almost everything they do. When they provide a high degree of utility - then they win - they should stick to that. Snapchat is doing it exactly right. And there's no reason to believe that in a few years, the Snapchat glasses won't be as powerful and 'app-ish' as the Google glasses.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > why is a tech company trying to create an 'accessory' that nobody wants Isn't this how, well, almost all consumer tech is created? Nobody wanted cellphones before cellphones. Nobody wanted smartphones before smartphones. Users don't demand things, they choose from what's available. Google created a pretty cool piece of tech, and I'm personally saddened it failed. Hopefully someone else does the marketing part right. Or even better, I hope that maybe component prices will go down (particularly, prisms for AR displays); I'd happily build a DIY solution for myself.
kevando 10y ago
This is a very good point. I understand the comparison to Google Glass, but I don't think it's fair. Google openly experiments. Snapchat openly does not. Normally this wouldn't bother me, but I see so many early 'start ups' that are just experiments, but because we create benchmarks like this - they put on fronts to be more than they are and we get this ecosystem of show-and-tell.

makapuf 10y ago

Besides, Karl lagerfeld is a famous fashion designer (couturier) that happens to take photos, not a photographer.

alexandersingh 10y ago
I think he'd disagree with you :P

intoverflow2 10y ago

>How soon we forget: Google Glass actually collaborated with Diane von Furstenberg (a famous fashion designer) and did a launch party at New York Fashion Week. They still courted the tech press massively though, none of us remember that fashion week launch. But we all remember the guy screaming in the shower and Sergey on stage wearing Glass with Crocs.

edblarney 10y ago

Even though G*Glasses were 'in a fashion' show doesn't mean in any way there were positioned in the proper aspirational way. Though yes, I agree they had to get devs in the loop 'because apps'. Snapchat is almost proper consumer marketing company. Google is a tech company - and they had absolutely no idea how to market and position those glasses to consumers.

trymas 10y ago
> Google is a tech company - and they had absolutely no idea how to market and position those glasses to consumers. wat. 1. G-glass != snapchat spectacles. 2. IMHO google tried to create new accessory - smart glasses, they first wanted to introduce it to developers to create apps for it. 3. Either: 3.1. Google saw that it was not worth it at that time. Google is in business of making money after all and not in business of making selfish and shameless teenagers happy. 3.2. The idea was burned down by privacy concerns. G-glass became recognizable enough that users won't use because public will dismiss them due to privacy reasons and vice versa. I loathe 'startups' like snapchat (though I understand there's money when such big user base takes pictures/videos of everything around them), but IMHO it's a matter of time when teenagers will grab another new and hip service to scream their daily lives to the world and all 'genius of marketing' will disappear.
- edblarney 10y ago
  If they wold like hotcakes 3.1 would not matter and 3.2 would be rectified enough to assuage the plebes. Your point 'they tried to create a new accessory': why is a tech company trying to create an 'accessory' that nobody wants, and is completely out of their domain? Snapchat is very intelligently extending their brand and user experience a little bit. Google was pushing tech. Things that we wear, are part of our culture, they are about fashion, trends, and to some degree functionality. Google his a tech company that has absolutely no clue how to do consumer marketing - this is evident in almost everything they do. When they provide a high degree of utility - then they win - they should stick to that. Snapchat is doing it exactly right. And there's no reason to believe that in a few years, the Snapchat glasses won't be as powerful and 'app-ish' as the Google glasses.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > why is a tech company trying to create an 'accessory' that nobody wants Isn't this how, well, almost all consumer tech is created? Nobody wanted cellphones before cellphones. Nobody wanted smartphones before smartphones. Users don't demand things, they choose from what's available. Google created a pretty cool piece of tech, and I'm personally saddened it failed. Hopefully someone else does the marketing part right. Or even better, I hope that maybe component prices will go down (particularly, prisms for AR displays); I'd happily build a DIY solution for myself.

kevando 10y ago

This is a very good point. I understand the comparison to Google Glass, but I don't think it's fair. Google openly experiments. Snapchat openly does not. Normally this wouldn't bother me, but I see so many early 'start ups' that are just experiments, but because we create benchmarks like this - they put on fronts to be more than they are and we get this ecosystem of show-and-tell.