3 ms·

If you couldn't, we'd all be wearing contacts. I seriously doubt the accuracy of that judgment. Likewise with the rest of the post. 'smug' and 'lazy' are nice

by yew 13y ago

If you couldn't, we'd all be wearing contacts. I seriously doubt the accuracy of that judgment. Likewise with the rest of the post. 'smug' and 'lazy' are nice, quick labels but none of it actually serves to differentiate the Segway from any other product. (I mean, 'started off extremely expensive with the goal of getting cheaper with volume'? Really?) The Segway just didn't fit a niche. There was no reason to buy one, so they stayed rare and weird. Which is also why they remain fairly popular as a tourist attraction in quite a few places. The idea that Segways exude a 'douchebag' field (along with an irrational hatred of mall cops) seems to be either highly regional or simply confined to the Internet. Just based on my own anecdotal experience, of course ;)

gfodor 13y ago
The exact same argument may or may not be leveled against Glass. "I already have a phone, why would I spend $1500 on something that just does what my phone does? Is the guy wearing Glass so lazy he spent $1500 so he doesn't have to take out his phone to check Facebook?" I was one of the people out there defending the Segway's absurd price point as a temporary condition since it seemed "obvious" that everyone would be riding around NYC on Segways in a few years. Segways would be incredibly useful in cities even today for getting around local neighborhoods, expanding the distance you can feasibly travel on a outing on foot. But you look dumb on them, they cause awkward interactions, you sit yourself on a tier above "normal people just walking around", and you are viewed as lazy relative to bikers. All of these aspects have clear analogs to Glass wearing. It makes no sense because people in cars do not look lazy relative to pedestrians. People are funny when it comes to self-image, regardless of utility.
- yew 13y ago
  I did mention that two posts above. If Glass is just "cellphones, but on your face" I agree that it probably won't catch on. Of course, smartphones are already useful for a lot of things besides checking Facebook. There's a reason they were so popular among businessmen even before the iPhone pushed them into the mainstream. The real question is whether or not 'the masses' (and especially teenagers) will pick up on the things, though. Smartphones followed in the cell phone's wake. So 'Facebook' might actually be a selling point, unless Facebook hatred picks up first (an extreme dislike for Facebook being yet another thing that essentially no one outside the techie-sphere shares).
  - gfodor 13y ago
    Yes this is a fair point, but it's a chicken and egg problem. To start, Glass is going to be "cellphones, but on your face." It takes time for new devices like Glass to not just be riffs on the last paradigm as people learn what they are good at and suck at. Recall the original iPhone apps were little more than "touch the screen and it makes a sound, yay!" The problem with Glass is this incubation period is happening at the same time the public is forced to come down on if the device is cool or not. Just like the "iPad is a big iPhone" meme died down after people built cool iPad apps that showed how it was different, so will happen with Glass unless the backlash is so strong it is cemented as a unwearable nerd-toy too quickly.

by yew 13y ago

gfodor 13y ago

The exact same argument may or may not be leveled against Glass. "I already have a phone, why would I spend $1500 on something that just does what my phone does? Is the guy wearing Glass so lazy he spent $1500 so he doesn't have to take out his phone to check Facebook?" I was one of the people out there defending the Segway's absurd price point as a temporary condition since it seemed "obvious" that everyone would be riding around NYC on Segways in a few years. Segways would be incredibly useful in cities even today for getting around local neighborhoods, expanding the distance you can feasibly travel on a outing on foot. But you look dumb on them, they cause awkward interactions, you sit yourself on a tier above "normal people just walking around", and you are viewed as lazy relative to bikers. All of these aspects have clear analogs to Glass wearing. It makes no sense because people in cars do not look lazy relative to pedestrians. People are funny when it comes to self-image, regardless of utility.

yew 13y ago
I did mention that two posts above. If Glass is just "cellphones, but on your face" I agree that it probably won't catch on. Of course, smartphones are already useful for a lot of things besides checking Facebook. There's a reason they were so popular among businessmen even before the iPhone pushed them into the mainstream. The real question is whether or not 'the masses' (and especially teenagers) will pick up on the things, though. Smartphones followed in the cell phone's wake. So 'Facebook' might actually be a selling point, unless Facebook hatred picks up first (an extreme dislike for Facebook being yet another thing that essentially no one outside the techie-sphere shares).
- gfodor 13y ago
  Yes this is a fair point, but it's a chicken and egg problem. To start, Glass is going to be "cellphones, but on your face." It takes time for new devices like Glass to not just be riffs on the last paradigm as people learn what they are good at and suck at. Recall the original iPhone apps were little more than "touch the screen and it makes a sound, yay!" The problem with Glass is this incubation period is happening at the same time the public is forced to come down on if the device is cool or not. Just like the "iPad is a big iPhone" meme died down after people built cool iPad apps that showed how it was different, so will happen with Glass unless the backlash is so strong it is cemented as a unwearable nerd-toy too quickly.