Snapchat Releases First Hardware Product, Spectacles
wsj.com
wsj.com
Snapchat can win here based on brand alone. The hardware features are a plus, but they're going to sell a lifestyle. Think GoPro + Versace. Commenters here are caught up in the tech. It's not the tech. Get a few celebrities in these, people will buy them and barely use the recording features. They're cheaper than Ray-Bans and I bet you and half of your friends own a pair of those.
Snapchat can assemble an AR powerhouse from the ground up with brand goodwill. Evan and his team have figured out the best market strategy to do so. Google is not "cool" and could never attempt to pull this off.
I have tremendous respect for Evan Spiegel right now. Bold move. Amazingly positioned. I wish them the best of luck. Dare I say, it has the scent of Jobs to it - the vision, the risk ("we make sunglasses now!") and definitely the "cool-factor." Don't misinterpret - this isn't the iPhone, not yet anyway, but I think they're on to something very big.
- You have to visibly tap the glasses to record
- People don't usually wear sunglasses indoors or at night (Corey Hart excluded)
- You're probably overestimating the amount of people that actually care if they get snapchatted
I live in Thailand and having occasional locals who literally eye-ball fuck you without blinking because it's so novel for them to see a foreigner, I can tell you that someone just staring at you is creepy, regardless of their age.
Also, that 'thing' looks even more ridiculous then Google Glass.
I guess the only way to find whos right is to wait a few months to see what its uptake is like
Anecdotally, I see tons of Apple Watches around Manhattan.
My opinion is that Snapchat is pretty good already, so why would I need this? Hence my analysis is that it would be difficult for Snap to market this product effectively without cannibalizing their existing product, so it's interesting to see whether they will make the queen's gambit.
Not saying it can't overlap, but still.
[0]: http://www.recode.net/2015/3/26/11560724/heres-the-chart-tha...
Remember Memoto? — The lifelogging camera that clips on your shirt; it looks like they're called Narrative now [0].
If Snapchat owns the camera hardware they have total control over analytics. They could become the platform for sharing daily moments. At some point, that's what Facebook was, except there was always an app layer in-between.
You mean the social signaling that is going to brand these users as "glassholes" as well?
>At $129 this is a no-brainer.
Please step out of your tech bubble. Most snapchat users are teenagers or college-age persons who absolutely do not have $129 to drop on a pair of novelty sunglasses.
(for "subsidy" to be a reasonable description of the flow of funds, the phone company would probably have to be losing money on the most expensive phones; of course they aren't. They provide the phone up front with a minimal payment, but they have structured the monthly fees to more than cover their costs for doing this.)
Furthermore, early termination fees are constant for all contracts. The person who got the $150 phone has the same termination fee as the person who got the $600 phone. Thus again, someone is subsidizing someone else.
And the fees aren't necessarily the same for cheaper phones:
Facebook probably can still use Instagram's brand, so that is an edge over Google. If they can do it soon enough while resisting branding the hardware as "Facebook" is another matter. That also means they probably have to already be close to releasing a finished product.
The larger question to me is who will have the stamina to thrive in the post-smartphone era? Snapchat may be able to break to ice and get a lot of people to wear something weird and clunky. By generation two or three, what happens if Apple, Magic Leap, or someone else is able to produce a more refined & seamless wearable? To "win" Snapchat will have to produce an incredibly robust AR headset that no one thinks twice about wearing all day long.
Other commenters are correct, the article reads like a shameless press release.
Remind me to read this in a year. Or a week.
Hey Amy - just a couple of rando thoughts from 35,000 LAX-JFK:
- A rising trend we see with Millennials are the really extreme forms of experiential exercise like Tough Mudder (a sort of filthy triathalon), the Color Run and even things like Hot Power Yoga, veganism etc. Millennials will often post “N.B.D.” on their social media after doing it , as in No Big Deal, also known as the “humble brag”.....wondering if Spidey could get into that in some way....he’s super athletic, bendy, strong, intense....and it’s all NBD to him, of course.
- EDM (electronic dance music) is the defining music for Millennials. Wondering if there’s an EDM angle somewhere with Spidey? His movements are beautiful, would be awesome with a killer DJ behind it
- Snapchat just launched a “story” functionality, which is sort of “day in the life of me” told in a series of snapchats that expire after 24 hours. It has a very VIP quality about it, since invitation only. Getting invited into Spidey’s Snapchat circle would be huge, and very buzzworthy and cool.
http://www.avclub.com/article/spider-man-should-be-snapchatt...
These are sunglasses that take a ten second video that is tied to Snapchat. They cost 130 bucks and immediately signal that you are a techie douchebag because that's what people still associate video-taking glasses with. It is literally a novelty toy that is using a WSJ article (native content advertising) to make it seem like a revolutionary technology / something cool. No one is going to buy these.
The question is whether it can grow to anything bigger than instant film Polaroids, which people also buy and enjoy using at parties, etc.
Obviously my finger is not on the pulse of today's youth. I don't think the kids today will be too inclined to shell out $130 for these gimmicky things, but my judgement on such matters is demonstrably terrible.
It'll be memeable instagram for commodity VR. 10 second FPV clips will become the next creative currency- the new 140 characters. It's an untrodden and instantly democratized new medium, but could only get the needed network effect if it's backed by someone with Snapchat's clout.
By the time useful AR comes to market, Snap will have all the best creative content.
Young people, 14-25 are going to buy these and make them cool. Not the 35 year old engineers who bought Google Glass.
Google has never made something cool. Snapchat was cool out of the gate.
>Young people, 14-25 are going to buy these and make them cool.
No, they are not. These are going to come to nothing, maybe some more fluff pieces. If I'm wrong, be sure to leave a comment here in the future.
Gmail was pretty revolutionary when it came out, and nearly everyone in that 14-25 age group uses Chrome.
Yes, Chrome is extremely popular among that age group, but many popular things aren't cool. For example, the Big Bang Theory is something very popular but even the fans wouldn't say it's cool.
In fact many things are cool in part because they are not overly popular, and often decrease in coolness as they become popular.
Gmail and Chrome were indeed innovative once, and perhaps you could argue they were cool back then, but today they are just a commodity - people (especially in that age group) just take them for granted, "it's what we use." They aren't cool.
I'm not personally enamored with these glasses either, but let's be fair. Plenty of folks considered the iphone an expensive tool for douchebags at its release. This is true of nearly all new personal computing products and is not a distinguishing characteristic.
I'm pointing out that the limitations on these glasses are along the same path.
Seems like a bunch of people didn't catch my point, I'll try and be more clear in the future.
Problem: many spontaneous moments are missed because the phone is not immediately accessible. The phone is in the pocket and it takes seconds to dig out the phone and switch to the camera app, and by that time I missed the moment.
Solution: put a camera at line of sight. Make it super simple to capture.
When you phrase it as a camera you mount to your head, it sounds super creepy. The sunglass is a natural vehicle for the camera since most people have sunglasses and wear them when it is sunny outside. It allows for validation testing of the idea, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a prescription version if the demand is there.
But these are sunglasses which are unlikely to be worn much indoors. So one might still have to fumble in a bag for the glasses, don them to put the camera in line of sight and then take a snap.
What really irks me is the overloading of the term 'spectacles'. These are absolutely not spectacles as commonly understood: "lenses to help a person's sight". But henceforth, any time anyone wants to search for spectacles they'll have to include terms to exclude Snapchat's gadget.
Surely they could have saved some of the money they spent on buying spectacles.com and invented a unique name. Snapticles? ( Google lists four hits for that word right now ).
But, if the lenses people see the world through is Snapchat then this makes perfect sense.
It's really not a bad name.
Solution: enjoy the spontaneous moment.
Apart from the norm that fanboying is bad, why? Isn't his resume pretty good already?
Edit: Thanks for the downvote.
The article quotes someone saying Evan's the "best product visionary" they had ever met. Give a smart kid a hot app, millions in funding and thus more smart minds, and great things can happen. But let's not overly romanticize it.
I am impressed by Snapchat's evolution, Stories etc but all that is somewhat obvious iterations on someone else's initial idea.
Snapchat is fun and sexy for a variety of reasons, none of which correlate well with people wearing clunky glasses. Spectacles aren't cool and won't be. It's a head-mounted camera. It needs to be more sleek, more expensive, and have some novel features to be considered a status symbol.
What is the immutable truth about Spectacles? To get there, we will take my obligatory tour of the immutable truth about "Glass". Glass started out as evil empire all the way. Visually, Glass looks the headgear the Cardassian Commanders wore while fighting side-by-side with other races in The Dominion. Got that? The Evilest of Evil Empires. Add to that, the subtle design aspects that tried to make Glass as invisible as possible to passersby. Though noticeable to the trained eye, Glass was certainly not prominent in the visual hierarchy of the average person. And if you were in the room with someone wearing Glass, you never knew if they were recording you. Glass is covert and voyeuristic, and that's what people hated about Glass.
So, back to what the "Spectacles" brand is. It's basis is in fun. A serious design effort to make them look fashionable. Perhaps not everyone's taste, but you can tell they didn't use a stock frame out of the catalog of a Chinese sunglass factory. Combine the shape with some goofy (or "ironic" in hipster parlance) color/pattern options, Spectacles come off as an every day stylish person's accessory. Add to that, the LEDs around the camera light up when recording, so you know when the wearer has chosen to record. They are right out in the open with their intent, not slithering around in the shadows like some Glasshole.
Second, Glass failed largely because of the invasive techno-snob feel to it - something that Spectacles has not overcome. It's one thing to have an iPhone in your pocket; it's quite another to shove your camera and microphone enabled face computer into the lives of literally everyone you interact with.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-lawsuit-video-deposi...
These are positioned more for celebrity events, where everyone understands they could be on camera. The film crew are celebrities too now, or celebrities start filming their interactions, so a big bright pair of these tells everyone 'hey I'm filming!' like a big camera would.
At private parties, I imagine it's largely the same thing, except that everyone there can only post onto Snapchat where it's lost to the sands of time.
The overtness and ephemeralness fixes both of the problems people had with 'glassholes'
This is not even remotely "Versace" - it can't possibly be.
Imagine pimply-faced teen nerds wearing these.
They will not even attempt to go for a "luxury" / "high-end" feel. Snapchat is not even remotely Apple.
Relax for a moment and come out of your fantasy.
Of _course_ they're sunglasses.
Of _course_ it's focused completely on video.
Of _course_ it's marketed as being about sharing your memories as you lived them.
Of _course_ you can only record 10 second videos at a time.
Of _course_ snaps automatically sync to the app.
Of _course_ they're designed to appeal to young fashionable people.
Of _course_ the charge lasts all day
This is one of those things where once you see it it's just obvious this is what it was supposed to be all along.
Glass had a camera but it was secondary. Glass was about AR, it was an interactive experience.
The best you can say right now is that there's a prospective customer base who wants these kinds of products to be popular or even just not considered laughable, but we're not there yet.
It reminds me of the difference between Google Cardboard and real VR in the level of commitment required.
If you don't know what your product is for, your customer is unlikely to figure it out for you.
The decline started when they started building what the VCs thought would be a winning lottery ticket: that was when they started closing the service and everything became focused the pitch to advertisers without enough balance on what their users might want.
Unlike google glass, recording and broadcasting to the Internet is the only purpose for this product.
(cynical me: for now)
It's better because it focuses on the one thing that is really easy to do well. It does not try to do everything at once. It doesn't try to give you apps in your glasses and everything under the sun. This is the right approach to products. Do one thing but do that well.
Before you criticize me think back to the original iPhone, it didn't start with an App Store and everything under the sun like the iwatch did. And yet the iPhone is an icon and the watch is no big deal.
I wonder if it has any privacy safeguards, like a red led indicating recording in progress?
Glass's problem was that it was a device that you were supposed to wear all the time, and a camera.
People aren't going to wear this, because they don't want to creep out people by having a camera pointed at them all the time.
This was the real problem with Google Glass.
Also, everyone already carries around a camera in their smartphone. They aren't going to add another.
I obviously don't agree with you based on my previous comment but I could be wrong. I will say this though that we all vastly underestimate what people want to do and share with each other. This is the company that spawned the self deleting video. I thought that was the dumbest idea ever. My point is privacy is something they thought of and this isn't as dumb as it looks.
This product could evolve to become more than meets the eye. No pun intended.
So, it's pretty brilliant for Snapchat to be making this sort of thing. Probably the devices to hit the market will be given to a very carefully curated set of people, and ubiquitous surveillance by camera-glasses will become fashionable.
I probably show up in hundreds of videos from bike commuting over the Brooklyn Bridge. It doesn't matter. I'm guessing 99.99% of the videos go unwatched anyway.
That's because they cut the ones who don't want to be filmed out.
> It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter to you. And you know what, that it doesn't matter to you doesn't matter to me, so this gains nothing.
26 is young for me now, even if that 26 yo person has a couple of children that think that their parents are as old as me.
From my perspective, that's a feature not a problem. It's obvious what you're doing, and of you try to photograph something really inappropriate, I can always slap the phone out of your hand. With snapchat (or google glass) style specs, I essentially need to attack your face to stop you filming, a far more aggressive action. I'd love to be able to bank on people knowing when not to film, but theres always one shitbag at every emergancy callout trying to get a really gnarly shot of someone elses broken arm so they can get dank internet points from their friends.
on next years model?
on next years cheap chinese imitation?
Then again, even if I know someone is pointing an empty gun at me, I'm still of the mindset "don't point that at me!"
Nope.
You can bet on this (and most tech products) failing hard.
At least the Japanese were too polite to say anything.
Normal people would hate this.
This only appeals to a certain tiny nerd demographic, the kind that thought Google Glass was originally a good idea.
People who are 30 are going to be weirded out by this. People who are 18 are not. They already have the assumption that anything they do in public might be filmed and shared on social media. And they want to be able to quickly film anything they're doing in public and put it on social media.
When you are surrounded by the superficial, building things for the superficial what else can you produce other than the superficial. It is sad as hell to watch. It isn't ironic to me that Trump is going to be leading this bunch of innovators soon.
A camera at eye level is extremely useful for many reasons, snapchat is just one, excellent use case. In my own life, I have a use for that specific tool, and am glad it exists - Google Glass was never widely released. And the price is great - at $129 this seems amazingly affordable.
I expect it to be a hit.
Is this really what this product does?
It's a nice way of thinking of it and hopefully it's true one day, but unless "our" means the typical HN reader, I don't think we're there yet. Consider that in the US in 2015, 43.1 million people were living in poverty (13.5% poverty rate) [1], and income inequality continues to rise [2].
[1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-25...
I'm not saying this as a criticism, just explaining the comment thread.
The actual problems that do exist in the U.S and the rest of the developing world are social problems. No amount of big disruptive thinking (by tech folk) is going to solve them.
If you look at SV's attempt to solve medical problems, you start to see where regulation and oversight are necessary for the difficult problems. Then you see why large governments, large companies, and exceptionally smart people with the backing of those organizations are the ones who need to solve the problem.
On top of all that, there's so often no actual intent to solve those problems. Poverty in the US is a big problem because the people who are capable of solving it just don't care enough to. In the case of government, voters are too self interested in the short term to push for it - how many times do you see complaints about hard earned tax dollars being used for poor people?
Even when the tech people do try to solve a social problem because the public has decided to care about it, attempts are misled and ineffective. If you look at the problem of diversity, companies are tryin to solve their problems at demand side. Big companies compete for female engineers to boost their numbers and smaller companies can't match their offers. This looks good on Apple's diversity report, but the problem is disguised, not fixed. Actual solutions, like encouraging women to become interested in STEM when they're young are few and far between.
So yes, I'd like tech innovators to focus on solving non-problems with life enriching innovations (slack, twitch, twitter, facebook, steam, VR, AR, bluetooth audio, etc) then waste time on misguided attempts that are way out of range for them.
-CRISPR, gene editing
-iTunes, iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc.
-re-usable space rockets (Spacex and Blue Origin)
-IBM's Watson and Deep Blue, Google's AlphaGo
-LIGO's detection of gravitational waves
-MIT's improvements in lithium ion technology
-NASA's exploratory discoveries on Mars, Mercury, Pluto, Saturn, etc.
-Google
-Wikipedia
-Facebook
-Tesla
-Uber
Hey, immigration is great! Steve Jobs was also the son of an immigrant..
First off, Snapchat (Snap?) isn't Google - their brands are completely different at least among the target audience. Glasses of some sort are inevitably going to be a fashion accessory with extra functionality, and Google is just too uncool. They are the company that wants to knows everything - every interaction refreshes that impression, from Street View vans to Search.
Second, it's sold as a camera on your face, instead of a computer on your face that can do things like recording a video. Even if it's the same hardware, this does make a difference. Everyone understands pseudo-mechanical functions like "press a button to take a 10 second video". Unless the wearer is mashing a button by their face, you can assume it's off. Computers and phones? One might as well assume it's recording video if the operator has the camera pointed at you. The average HNer has a good mental model of how a computer works, but the average person sees it as a magic-infused black box.
The price point looks reasonable, I assume the goal here is strong sales for the holidays. Would expect some celebrities or whoever to be spotted wearing these in the next few months.
Exactly why comparisons to google glass miss the point. Totally different products and userbases
Which thing is that? Being a camera, or being a pair of sunglasses?
Using your own example:
Before the iPhone, you had seperate: GPS Camera Flashlight MP3 Player and many other things
With the iPhone, you got all of these and a nice compact package that you could carry with you at all times. Thats not to say feature creep can't be a problem, but more that sticking to hard and fast rules like 'do one thing but do that well' is largely an oversimplification of the world to make the world more comprehendible to those that don't want to look at the real nuance of products/markets etc.
As a productivity device it's weak, but as a toy it looks pretty fun and I'm amazed at the sea of people screaming about what a stupid idea it is and how it'll never catch on. If I had disposable income I could certainly see myself buying one and playing with it.
Glass as a AR demonstrator is doing quite well as a beta product for enterprise. Augmedix comes to mind.
[1]Snapshot is an online multimedia application. [2]The infrastructure required to move from online to hardware requires significant investment (beyond the $1.8B they recently raised) - that of which I don't believe Snapchat can fund without a serious re-monetiziation strategy beyond Ads. It is only a matter of time before FB makes the move into Snapchat's market more than they already are. [3]This is an unproven market. Google tried it and didn't succeed. A better play - let someone else test the market a bit more and then move in with a solid Ad monetization strategy around the Spectacles. [4]Why Hardware?! Seriously? I believe Evan is overplaying his hands with so much VC capital coming his way.
You couldn't even wear Glass in Silicon Valley, land of graphic tees and dad jeans. I could imagine seeing these anywhere from Santa Monica to NYC or Lake Tahoe to Macchu Pichu.
Background: Google Glass
Cost: $1,500 for early adopters (irrelevant) Cost to Manufacture: ~$100 USD Sale Price: $299 Margin: ~33% (low)? Probably. Yes!
Yes with economies of scale...blah....blah...blah...
Let's assume (I'll use the 150M, but I don't want to):
A. 5% of their 150M userbase that's 7.5M * $130 = $1B USD B. 5% of their 150M userbase that's 7.5M * $89 = $668M USD C. 5% of their 150M userbase that's 7.5M * $50 = $375M USD
Let's play with some more numbers because I think 5% is super generous. Why? Yes, Snapchat's demographic is 18-24 yr olds but as you may know, new users over 35 is growing at 2X. Personally, I am under the impression that this means Snapchat is losing it's appeal with their current demographic.
A. 1% of their 150M userbase that's 1.5M * $130 = $195M USD B. 2.5% of their 150M userbase that's 3.75M * $89 = $334M USD C. 3% of their 150M userbase that's 4.5M * $50 = $225M USD
$1B seems a bit off from your calculations. We haven't even factored in COGS, manufacturing costs, etc. Not to mention their margins will be extremely low until they square away manufacturing which could take several years. > Diversify their future product line...
I highly doubt it is going to happen.
> Forget a remonetization strategy for ads...
I agree! I didn't say it was the best idea, but snapchat will need to go all in or not. They can't put a toe in and decide the market isn't ready or they need to raise more capital - it will send the wrong message to investors.
Again, I am operating under the assumption that Snapchat is trying to become a brand.
The only thing to realize is they have a $100+ device that is compelling to their 150M user base. That's a great sign. I think that the manufacturing chain for 'cheap shit electronics toys' is developed enough in 2016 to make good margins.
https://www.amazon.com/Snapchat-Inc/pages/10660293011
In terms of "hardware" Spectacles are almost a textbook example of what plenty of people with $0 funding do, tweak/private label a product from china and sell it on Amazon. Look at the range of "camera sunglasses" on Alibaba for starters.
The only difference with these are product design & software, two things that are core businesses for Snapchat. In terms of manufacturing, that custom Snapchat backpack would probably be trickier to get manufactured than this..
The fact that a product with less functionality than a $25 set of camera sunglasses on Alibaba is being compared to Google Glass really shows what a great PR/strategy move this has been for Snapchat.
The ability to have cheaper, stylish, handsfree video recording of my POV has a lot of potential. How-to videos, the "capturing memories" as noted in the article, even just easily recording benign life experiences (police stops, for instance) seamlessly and without hassle is huge.
I do hope there is a tattletale light or something so that the average user can't surreptitiously record things and otherwise easy privacy controls... and I hope it's not long before someone hacks this or they unlock the product to do more than 10 second clips...
If I were GoPro I'd be nervous.
Edit: Actually a second thought- this would be a lot better than body cams in a lot of situations (or certainly a good companion) because it would capture the officer's line of sight.
These things will go the way of google glass. Cue reports of people being beaten up for wearing them.
And unlike google glasses, the only usecase these things are good for is taking creep shots and uploading them automatically.
Don't think for a second that all the limitations like 10 second recording length won't be patched out by users on day one.
Yeah... no.
I wouldn't skydive with those glasses.
Though "gopro for the rest of us" would be a good tagline.
The rest of your post is pretty spot on.
If Spectales were $99 instead of $129 I think they'd be in solid impulse buy territory, too.
I am not in marketing / sales so maybe GoPro likes being at the top and making higher end cameras and it won't matter. As it is today a pair of glasses that only records 10 seconds of video won't be able to compete anyway.
Just like Google Glass users being called Glassholes, SnapChat glasses will probably be called something like SnapChads, because only white rich guys in pastel shorts and rugby shirts named Chad will use them. The aesthetic just isn't there for wide adoption.
If they simply live stream the video from the glasses to the phone and do the same augmentation, I think that counts as AR.
Welcome to real world prices. This is definitely not disposable, this sounds like a good price for VR to me and I'd be careful with them. But they're not VR and VR is a lot more expensive, so that's why nobody outside the industry has one.
"Without letting people know I'm going to film them and spam them over the Internet."
Also, it only records 10 seconds of video at a time, and the video only gets sent out to my friends, not all over the internet
Grabbing mainstream users with integrated glasses/camera then moving up market seems like some weird but logical form of disruption.
Snapchat's flagship app has been similar -> come in the bottom and substitute for texting photos to one another -> become the primary form of social media (user generated content, consumption, time in app?) for a broad set of social media users.
Disclaimer: this coming from an avid snapchatter, hoping spectacles are a big hit.
1). The messaging emphasizes it's just "a toy", a low volume experiment. More playful and more humble approach makes it a smaller target for ridicule.
2.) Pricing at $149 also makes it less pretentious and more importantly, puts it in the discretionary income range of what the heck I'll give it a shot.
Particularly since I feel it will inspire the next product which is an IR flood light that renders all digital cameras useless, since there are so many people oblivious to the fact by trying to capture the experience for themselves they're detracting from the experience for everyone else.
Letting people who need a digital memento silently get one without intruding on the experience of those of us just there to enjoy and be in the moment is a great compromise.
And the IR-filter is actually a problem for those of us who like astrophotography and have to resort to modding or (expensive) special editions of cameras.
Oh well, thanks for telling me that, Dr. Zoidberg. I wonder if flooding some IR would be enough to add enough ghosting or whiteout as to make the video captured undesirable.
Quite impressive, you have to see it in action:
http://codepen.io/bennettfeely/details/pjgrRL?preview_height...
It's also the shape of nearly all screens in the world. Perhaps I'm not visionary enough, but I don't foresee a circular computer or phone screen really improving the current situation...
It doesn't improve the image itself but it improves the physical appearance of the product.
The way they framed this product is _so_ refreshing.
While it's less offensive than Google Glasses, this doesn't look like "normal" glasses.
And why is Apple profitable with hardware? Because the company that makes the hardware also makes the software.
Just like Snap, Inc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6naWlVjcIM
Genius!
That said, I worry about implementation. My guess is that it's going to be directly and permanently tied to Snapchat itself. Which significantly reduces the potential usefulness of this product - not everything you record is something you only want to have sent directly to Snapchat. Personally, I want files. Plain, old files. Is that so hard to understand for all those cloud-first companies?
I thought the book was quite heavy handed three years ago, but statements like "Privacy is theft" are becoming more and more normal.
Good thing that cannot possibly be painted over or something. crisis averted...
If anything kills GoPro it's something like this.
If enough people start jailbreaking their Spectacles, Snapchat good could then get rid of this limitation.
If anything, the goal of this article is simply to have 3rd parties clone this idea.
This person has never seen the Snapchat interface.
Are they able to darken the lense glass to hide the camera a bit? Maybe they could match the black of the camera sensor to the black of the glass a little more. Otherwise it looks a lot like two cameras on your face.
I cannot believe this is still an issue for major publications.
How do they solve the personal privacy issues that arose with Google Glass? Or have they even bothered?
> (Why make this product, with its attendant risks, and why now? “Because it’s fun,” he says with another laugh.)
Sometimes you can look at something and just KNOW that there is not a chance that pile of junk is gonna gain traction.
>The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.
"Google Glass 2.0" and similar cheap bashing isn't just against the rules, it's boring and petty.
Take it to 4chan, you'll get the attention you're after.