Live data from Hacker News

Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

techcrunch.com

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#11
post #7

>If you want to make something cool, don’t give it to geeks first. Does anyone else get really tired of stuff like this? Why is it that every possible difference is celebrated except within liberal circles, with the exception that nerds are considered objectively bad. In fact the article comes across as body shaming.

Othering of "nerds" isn't restricted to liberals.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#12
post #11
post #7

>If you want to make something cool, don’t give it to geeks first. Does anyone else get really tired of stuff like this? Why is it that every possible difference is celebrated except within liberal circles, with the exception that nerds are considered objectively bad. In fact the article comes across as body shaming.

Othering of "nerds" isn't restricted to liberals.

"othering" of nerds isn't restricted to liberals but it is especially hypocritical when they do it. Also liberals are predisposed to "other" nerds because they have chosen nerds to be the symbol of unaware privilege and crude libertarianism so in their thinking nerds deserve no sympathy.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#13
post #7

>If you want to make something cool, don’t give it to geeks first. Does anyone else get really tired of stuff like this? Why is it that every possible difference is celebrated except within liberal circles, with the exception that nerds are considered objectively bad. In fact the article comes across as body shaming.

I think you are confusing "liberal" and "mass consumer marketing"; in the latter, which is the issue here, focusing appeal on the interest of any isolated niche that isn't representative of the actual target market (nerds certainly qualify, but aren't the only niche with this problem) is objectively bad, in that it is manifestly harmful to the concrete objective.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Othering of "nerds" isn't restricted to liberals.

"othering" of nerds isn't restricted to liberals but it is especially hypocritical when they do it. Also liberals are predisposed to "other" nerds because they have chosen nerds to be the symbol of unaware privilege and crude libertarianism so in their thinking nerds deserve no sympathy.

I am somewhat amused by this because I've been a liberal and nerd my whole life, participated extensively in liberal activist circles, and never once encountered this among liberals (the closest to this I've seen would be some segments of the community's reaction to perceived ivory tower intellectuals that are distant from pragmatics, but even that isn't so much an othering as a sometimes white-hot debate about priorities and tactics within the movement.)

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#15
post #7

>If you want to make something cool, don’t give it to geeks first. Does anyone else get really tired of stuff like this? Why is it that every possible difference is celebrated except within liberal circles, with the exception that nerds are considered objectively bad. In fact the article comes across as body shaming.

[deleted]

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"othering" of nerds isn't restricted to liberals but it is especially hypocritical when they do it. Also liberals are predisposed to "other" nerds because they have chosen nerds to be the symbol of unaware privilege and crude libertarianism so in their thinking nerds deserve no sympathy.

I am somewhat amused by this because I've been a liberal and nerd my whole life, participated extensively in liberal activist circles, and never once encountered this among liberals (the closest to this I've seen would be some segments of the community's reaction to perceived ivory tower intellectuals that are distant from pragmatics, but even that isn't so much an othering as a sometimes white-hot debate about prior…

Even as a liberal I think there's actually something to this idea. You can see it with things like the financial transaction tax proposals that are clearly meant to hurt nerdy HFTs rather than affect banks. I think part of it is that nerdy HFTs aren't eloquent enough to explain what they're doing and how it benefits the world.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#17
post #8

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 .

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.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#18

Did they fix the privacy issues that arose with Google glasses or is everyone just conveniently forgetting that?

Snapchat-loyal press have been well trained to highlight the spinning LEDs and not question the privacy angle. Perhaps they're "ok" with it because clips are shorter and it's not the big bad G.

IMO while it's more noticeable than Glass's single pixel it's still a concealed camera.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#20

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 inev…

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?

Post reply on HN