It's the “hardware”, stupid • Hacker News Board

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#11

Post by mc32 » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:16 PM UTC

zelos wrote: post #10

jasonthorsness wrote: post #6

I don't wear glasses but that's the primary form factor I can imagine. Already socially and legally acceptable, non-audible communication channel plus low-volume audio, points in a direction that generally matches attention. And pre-AI investment in augmented reality has given it a head start.

Maybe, but plenty of people are prepared to poke their fingers in their eyes every morning in order to avoid wearing glasses, so it can't be all that popular a form factor.

Probably because wearing eye glasses signals a handicap whereas this instead could signal being part of an in-group.

Kind of like torn jeans. Before the mid sixties torn clothing would signify economic disadvantage and you’d avoid it if possible but afterwards it signified rebellion and people wanted to signal rebelliousness with torn jeans or at least signal being part of an in-group however large and diluted it be.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#12

Post by dylan604 » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:22 PM UTC

andai wrote: post #7

starky wrote: post #5

The article buries the lede on the only point that matters with these "AI" hardware devices. They need to solve a problem their customers have, and all the devices these companies have released so far don't do anything that a smartphone can't easily do.

For me the interesting part was that OpenAI's only viable option for a mobile OS is Android, while Google is their main competitor.

Why is that interesting in why would it matter. Many competitors to Google use Android on their devices. Why would this be different?

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#13

Post by jasonthorsness » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:22 PM UTC

fishmicrowaver wrote: post #9

jasonthorsness wrote: post #6

I don't wear glasses but that's the primary form factor I can imagine. Already socially and legally acceptable, non-audible communication channel plus low-volume audio, points in a direction that generally matches attention. And pre-AI investment in augmented reality has given it a head start.

What's happened between the failure of Google Glass and now? People not wanting to be creep shotted in public was one of the major reasons it got pulled, as far as I recall. Have people just gotten over it or what?

It was early. Social acceptance will happen like it did for phones (although I still get weirded out looking at a bus full of people all staring at a device).

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#14

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:25 PM UTC

jasonthorsness wrote: post #13

fishmicrowaver wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's happened between the failure of Google Glass and now? People not wanting to be creep shotted in public was one of the major reasons it got pulled, as far as I recall. Have people just gotten over it or what?

It was early. Social acceptance will happen like it did for phones (although I still get weirded out looking at a bus full of people all staring at a device).

Social acceptance for panopticon glasses is going to be very weird.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#15

Post by rs186 » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:26 PM UTC

I wish more people pointed out the obvious when the Vision Pro hype was everywhere on HN.

> The crux of the problem was clear: these devices were captivated by "technical possibilities," but failed to address "user problems."

Hmm.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#16

Post by stronglikedan » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:28 PM UTC

zelos wrote: post #10

jasonthorsness wrote: post #6

I don't wear glasses but that's the primary form factor I can imagine. Already socially and legally acceptable, non-audible communication channel plus low-volume audio, points in a direction that generally matches attention. And pre-AI investment in augmented reality has given it a head start.

Maybe, but plenty of people are prepared to poke their fingers in their eyes every morning in order to avoid wearing glasses, so it can't be all that popular a form factor.

Plenty, but not most. More and more people have accepted glasses now that they've become more fashionable. In fact, anywhere you go, the majority of people are likely wearing glasses if you take the time to notice. They pretty much blend right in anymore, so it's much less noticeable unless you're looking for it.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#17

Post by _vaporwave_ » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:35 PM UTC

> The iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design. It was because it packed everything we needed every day—phone calls, music, internet, photos, maps—into a single device.

Have to disagree here. There were many devices before (and after) the iPhone that offered this package but it stands above the rest because of its design and polish.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#18

Post by worthless-trash » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:41 PM UTC

_vaporwave_ wrote: post #17

> The iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design. It was because it packed everything we needed every day—phone calls, music, internet, photos, maps—into a single device. Have to disagree here. There were many devices before (and after) the iPhone that offered this package but it stands above the rest because of its design and polish.

I think it was mostly the marketing.

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#19

Post by NoraCodes » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:44 PM UTC

jasonthorsness wrote: post #13

fishmicrowaver wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's happened between the failure of Google Glass and now? People not wanting to be creep shotted in public was one of the major reasons it got pulled, as far as I recall. Have people just gotten over it or what?

It was early. Social acceptance will happen like it did for phones (although I still get weirded out looking at a bus full of people all staring at a device).

... why? I imagine most of them are doing the same activity as a bus full of people reading the newspaper or a magazine, just with new forms of media...

Re: It's the “hardware”, stupid

#20

Post by embedding-shape » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 4:45 PM UTC

_vaporwave_ wrote: post #17

> The iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design. It was because it packed everything we needed every day—phone calls, music, internet, photos, maps—into a single device. Have to disagree here. There were many devices before (and after) the iPhone that offered this package but it stands above the rest because of its design and polish.

I don't recall if the iPhone actually even had internet and maps at launch. I think the first time I saw an iPhone in person was in France maybe around 2007/2008 or something, and at that point it didn't even have the AppStore I'm fairly sure, just had the apps it came with.

And most of the discussion I had with the owner wasn't about how it was "all-in-one package", but rather how much smoother the UI was compared to other touch devices at the time, how accurate it was and how it felt in the hand.