[softwarefounder]

You seem to be getting down-voted, maybe by the feminine comment, but you're right; it's clear that their marketing is towards women (https://www.spectacles.com/), and they're missing a huge market. (Why not two styles?)

Edit: Imagine if they would've had a male styled version, and tried to get Kanye West, or some other pop/style star wearing them.

Huge miss.

[ghostly_s]

Imagine it they would've done a female styled version, and got Kim Kardashian wearing them? Why is that less legitimate? The parent is being downvoted because of the implicit criticism is that a female-first targeted rollout is a mistake.

[_uhtu]

I think the parent would have drawn the same criticism if the exclusively marketed towards men.

I think his point was simply that their marketing misses 50% of the market. His point is not that it's wrong to only market towards women, his point was that it seems weird from a revenue perspective to only market to to half the population.

[caseydurfee]

A lot of products start with half the population, though, and it's not considered weird. The old euphemism is "shrink it and pink it" - originally design for men, then put out a women's version.

If Spectacles take off, they can always "grow it and bro it" later. Starting off with a focused target market seems like a reasonable approach to me.

[noitsnot]

The demographics of revenue or ad generating snap users might be more telling, but he/she is suggesting that they should have released a male and female version or a gender neutral version. That way you're not missing a massive part of the market, a.k.a. 82 million daily active users if it's an even 50/50 male/female split.