41–50 of 342 posts
I don't understand why all these software companies are in a rush to make hardware. With the lone exception of Apple, all hardware seems to resort in a race to the bottom commoditization resulting in paper thin margins.
And why is Apple profitable with hardware? Because the company that makes the hardware also makes the software.
Just like Snap, Inc.
I think this is significantly better than what Google did with Google Glass. 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 sta…
If this means I can go to a public performance and no longer have to try to look past the sea of upthrust arms and glare of 1000 brightly lit screens to see what I came to see then it can't come quickly enough! 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 exp…
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.
Why? You need to seriously question the motives behind such a launch. IMHO: [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 i…
What changed?
2015 revenues of $59M. Assuming an above average salary range, 1000 employees cost about $250M. If they were a public company, they'd get slaughtered on the stock markets.
> (Spiegel argues that rectangles are an unnecessary vestige of printing photos on sheets of paper.) 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also doesn't look nearly as dorky as Google Glass did. Google Glass had the problem where it was trying to be an all-purpose life-enhancing thing that people would wear all the time, so it was trying to be both invisible and distinctive. This doesn't need to pretend to be something that you can forget you're wearing or something that you can pair with any type of outfit -- it has a strong sense of style, and it's…
These glasses are going to be a huge hit thanks to their style. The main userbase of snapchat are product-hungy 12-25 year olds without much conviction; they'll jump at the chance to get a product that looks cool and represents their favourite timesink. I am very impressed with this move because it gives Snapchat a supplement to ad-based revenue. I hope this makes them a lot of money.
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.