4 ms·
my criticism of this is the same as that silly AI pin, or the thing from CES everybody was excited about: just make an app. if your product is camera+ai+outpu
by notatoad 3y ago
my criticism of this is the same as that silly AI pin, or the thing from CES everybody was excited about: just make an app. if your product is camera+ai+outputs, nothing about that needs dedicated hardware.
if your app is so good i want to wear it on my face all day, then that's awesome, and i'll buy the glasses. but i don't want to have to spend hundreds of dollars on a pair of glasses just to find out that the software is underwhelming.
- scosman 3y agoNot sure I follow. Same argument could have be made for smart phones (just make a PC app). This is a new app platform. It may or may not work, but it’s not a single purpose device.
- xmprt 3y agoExcept that smart phones already had a concrete use case beforehand (web browsing/checking emails on the go, instant messaging + phone calls) which only got better with advancements in technology (ie, iPhone). This is putting the cart before the horse. There are no great applications on phones that would be improved with new hardware nor are there unique applications that can only be done on the hardware without the phone.
- notatoad 3y agoyes, exactly: the argument for smartphones was obvious: "i want to take this app that i use on my computer, and take it everywhere with me in my pocket". that same argument doesn't exist for these new AI devices. there's no reason these point-a-camera-and-get-an-ai-response apps can't exist on phones, or computers, but they mostly don't. so who's calling for putting those apps that don't exist on your face?