[primigenus]

This fixes everything broken about Google Glass. It's almost disturbing how much more on point this is:

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.

[hiou]

As Google learned with glass and Twitter still needs to learn:

If you don't know what your product is for, your customer is unlikely to figure it out for you.

[o_____________o]

Twitter might be a bad example, given that's exactly how it rose to popularity

[acdha]

I think Twitter is a complicated example: it thrived when they were building a product which the developers wanted to use personally, which included embracing ideas which other developers had made for their users.

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.

[flogic]

I think what killed Google Glass was more price and availability. Combined with concerns over the camera, that solidified the whole glasshole thing.

[GabrielF00]

What about the problem of some people freaking out if they feel like they're being filmed?

[gcr]

Agree. I would want to avoid people who use these.

Unlike google glass, recording and broadcasting to the Internet is the only purpose for this product.

[acid__]

But unlike Google Glass, you can only record for 10 seconds at a time, and you'll watch people make a motion to start recording before it happens.

[clort]

and apparently it has a light showing when it is recording

(cynical me: for now)

[nappy]

The product perfectly matches the brand, using technology in a way that fits user needs. I'll be excited to see how they do.

[binarymax]

Not to mention, one tenth the retail cost.

[losteric]

One tenth the cost, one tenth the functionality. This is just a wireless camera for your smart phone. Point and shoot, that's it. It really reminds me of the cheap "Spy Sunglasses" I had as a kid.

Glass had a camera but it was secondary. Glass was about AR, it was an interactive experience.

[skybrian]

Yes, that's why it's different. People aren't ready to commit to wearing technology on their face. This is more like a costume or a party game, something to try out briefly in a friendly situation rather than commit to as a serious part of your look. It would be more popular if it were cheaper, but at least people can pass it around.

It reminds me of the difference between Google Cardboard and real VR in the level of commitment required.

[agumonkey]

Except the market isn't ready for this. Impedance mismatch.

[1_2__3]

This is the key that nobody seems willing to admit in this thread. For about fifty different reasons, most of which have been hashed out ad nauseum, these products are not what people want.

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.

[agumonkey]

I guess it's a matter of what "want" means. People might want it in a few moments, and some see it as obvious but the actual people are not "in the mood" right now. Basically, what you just said (I only read the first sentence before typing heh).

[bennesvig]

I could see Snapchat's Spectacles evolving into that. They already have impressive facial and object recognition.