[jknoepfler]

I look forward to a future in which we are all wearing ridiculously walled-garden tech on our faces, and a future in which we've gotten over it. I feel like just as we're slowly recovering the art of making food from the excesses of the early 20th century, our children's children will have to recover the art of being a social human being from the excesses of the early 21st century.

I recognize that otherizing an inevitable technology (ubiquitous connected vision) is taking the wrong side of history, but I hope my grandchildren make fun of my children for it.

I think it's interesting that the article did not describe the device's capacities at all.

In the meantime, I think Snapchat's marketing angle is ingenious. They decided to build trust, but not in the community of makers as Google did, they built trust in the community of shameless consumers (I mean that non-perjoratively). Google's mistake is understandable when you think that they are also trying to be respected in the cloud/app maker/developer space. Snapchat does not have that problem.

[trymas]

>In the meantime, I think Snapchat's marketing angle is ingenious.

IMHO it's not something very ingenious, they are shooting ideas - some of them stick to the wall.

> They <...> built trust in the community of shameless consumers

..and that's why the idea sticks (just like whole snapchat et al.). It's shameless and to put it more straight - frequently egoistic (and maybe arrogant as well?) users who use this and go crazy about it.

With google's glass the media raged about how it's a huge privacy problem [&]. Snapchat's spectacles? Genius!! Short memory.

[&] Though to be more critical, having a huge price point and available to few people was the problem as well, but IMHO the media sunk the ship before it was a float by labeling it as a huge privacy issue.

[Lewton]

Hm, yes... Let's ponder for a moment on why, when a data mining company sells a product that gives them access to a ton of private data, people are skeptical. While a company whose main product is built on the concept of deleting data, doing the same thing, gets a pass?

[trymas]

I would be extremely doubtful of that.

IMHO next step for snapchat is somewhere in AR and I bet that they are using data from their users for testing/training their face recognition. Also pictures/videos can be one of their assets for creating other features/products. Snapchat has ads, so data collection for ad targeting is extremely likely.

[Lewton]

My phrasing was a little muddy.

It's not really relevant whether Snapchat does data mining behind the scenes. But their brand is built upon ephemeral data. The exact opposite of Google.

It has nothing to do with "short memory" when the public reacts less creeped out than when google tried to push a similar product.

[crush_xc]

The reason why it's not a privacy issue? You can tell when someone is snapping with spectacles. You could have no idea someone was taking a photo with glass. It's different.

[hownottowrite]

Why wait? Just read Tokyo Ghost. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Ghost

"Tokyo Ghost is an ongoing American science fiction comics series written by Rick Remender, drawn by Sean Murphy and colored by Matt Hollingsworth, published since September 2015 by Image Comics.

The series is set in 2089, a time when humanity is addicted to technology and entertainment. It follows the story of constables Debbie Decay and Led Dent, working as peacekeepers in the Isles of Los Angeles. They are given a job that will take them to the last tech-free country on Earth: the garden nation of Tokyo."

[Apocryphon]

It kinda looks like Transmetropolitan in style. Are they similar?

[hownottowrite]

There are some echoes, which you'd expect with a near future dystopian vibe. However, in the Tokyo Ghost world everything is already fubar - everyone knows it and no one is surprised by anything horrible.

[petercooper]

I look forward to a future in which we are all wearing ridiculously walled-garden tech on our faces

I'm already experiencing this in the small with people who are glued to the Apple ecosystem (I'm a Mac user, I just don't use an iPhone or Facetime, etc). Some people are so into iMessage and not on WhatsApp/Snapchat/whatever, that it actually impedes communication with them.

[coev]

Why not just text them? It works everywhere.

[petercooper]

I guess it just feels weird. Dropping in photos and emojis to that sort of context has become too much a part of normal friendly communication now that I feel a bit hamstrung without it. Luckily Facebook Messenger is the almost universal workaround for now.

[crush_xc]

some people don't want to text, regardless if you're on an iphone or not. I've had people I just don't talk to much anymore because they only want to use iMessage and hate when it's the different color for someone out of the ecosystem.

[TeMPOraL]

> I recognize that otherizing an inevitable technology (ubiquitous connected vision) is taking the wrong side of history, but I hope my grandchildren make fun of my children for it.

I'm "otherizing" that technology because it's a fucked up, perverted version of what it should be. Instead of interconnected, interoperable tools we get shiny, vendor locked-in toys. Mostly useless, crippled by shitty apps and not working well with anything. I myself want to wear tech on my face, just not the kind of shit that companies want to make.

[JonnieCache]

> otherizing

what? Can you explain what you mean here?

I know what "othering" means but I have no idea how you would do it to a technology, or what it means to write it with the "-ize" suffix.

[dilap]

it's good marketing, but it's also an interesting tool.

hey, look, you can take a snap super-easily and unobtrusively with a much more intimate camera-angle.

google's mistake was...wtf was the point of glass? to look like a rich cyborg douchebag?