[bitwize]

TL;DR, don't make and market tech products for tech people, because they're all queasy autists who will make your product look dorky and ugly. Aim your products at the cool people, the beautiful people, the Kardashians and Iggy Azaleas of the world. They're the people who matter.

[flashman]

> They're the people who matter.

For the marketing purposes of driving mass adoption of your fashion product: yes, unquestionably. If tech people want to drive fashion, maybe they should stop looking down their noses at the industry and embrace it.

[croon]

I see what you're saying, and I agree to some extent, but I'll make a distinction I believe in.

There's no doubt that tech people have mattered in driving a lot of products and services by being early adopters. However, there is a difference between "tech products" and fashion accessories, which I think this is, even if it happens to also be technical.

On a separate but related note, as a lifelong nerd I feel comfortable in saying this: There are few things I cringe more at than nerds getting rich and popular without handling that gracefully. If I were to market a product I would definitely market through "professional" famous people that are comfortable with that role, for good and bad.

[leereeves]

When it comes to fashion (which wearables are) they probably are the people who matter.

[bsaul]

Maybe this is the start of a sanity check in the IT world. Geeks are dorky and weird, and most of us have big social awkwardness. Maybe we'll find a good middle ground, where we could stop caring about looking cool and using the latest trendy tech, and just get back to be good professionals.

[edblarney]

* The glasses are not a tech product *

And Snapchat is * not a tech company *

That's an important thing to get first :)

[1_2__3]

Yes they are and yes it is. Marketing is trying to convince you otherwise and I'm a little shocked you swallow it so easily.

[edblarney]

"Marketing is trying to convince you otherwise and I'm a little shocked you swallow it so easily"

I've worked in marketing and tech, I know the difference.

Snapchat is not a technology company, any more than Nike is.

Nike is a consumer marketing/apparel/fashion company, that invests a lot in 'sports tech' and used to be (in the 1970's) more of a purely sports tech company, but made the shift to lifestyle/brand apparel in the 1980's.

Snapchat is as much a 'technology' company as MTV, Pixar, Zara or Wallmart.

[ohstopitu]

Excatly! it does not integrate with anything else apart from Snapchat (hence, it does not market/depend on the tech folks)!

[edblarney]

"(hence, it does not market/depend on the tech folks)!"

You're right - but that was not my point.

It's not so much an issue of 'how it integrates' with other apps.

Snapchat is focused on 'sharing irreverent, serendipitous experiences among young people'. Technology is a means to that, and that is all.

They are a lifestyle brand more than a tech company.

[usrusr]

The same way that Oculus () could never market to the Kardashians of the world. Different products, different target audience. Complaining about that is almost like complaining about the lack of dentures care products aimed at teens.

( it's kind of crazy how many aspects, technical and otherwise, one can come up with in which Snapchat spectacles and the Oculus Rift are exact opposites of each other, starting with one receives pixel streams from the outside, the other sends them to the inside)

[Apocryphon]

We just elected a Twitter troll for president.

[oliv__]

Yikes...

[chinathrow]

Who matter to drive sales ;)