241–250 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure that they will write these off evetually. To me they feel very similar to Google glass insofar the customer bases being somewhat similar, maybe spectacles' being somewhat younger.
Google Glass and Spectacles are not even close to the same customer base. Google glass was a luxury beta product for techies with lots of disposable income. Spectacles are targeted towards 15-25yr olds. Google Glass users wanted to use the "future" of technology where as spectacles users want to Snap and share more. I'm surprised their hasn't been nearly the same adverse reaction to spectacles as there was to glass.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
spoken like someone who hasn't used the product. snapchat's ads fit the format amazingly well, and now that snapchat is also paying for content directly everyone's incentives are aligned to make a deeply engaging product that monetizes well without alienating users.
I have. I'm saying that especially when public, there is no such thing as enough profitability. There's no number of ads that will satisfy shareholder demands. They'll have to squeeze more and more and the only possible signal that "more" has become "too much" is necessarily when users start walking away from the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google ads are something we only see when searching on google. They're easy to tolerate. No one will put up with virtual ads in AR.
I'm not so sure. Even with their rudimentary pre-AR camera filters, some were pretty popular and successful [1]. The Gatorade dunk filter generated 160 million impressions and the company was very pleased [2] -- and people seemed to like it. The filters are also interesting because they involve user choice: the ads are not unsolicited; rather, they are picked by the users. That's pretty interesting. We've had in-game…
Occasionally I'll watch an NHL hockey game and on certain broadcasts I started to notice large banners on the glass behind the goals and thought to myself, "Boy, you pay for seats that close to the ice and you're looking at the back of a banner ad?"
When I noticed the ad changed during the broadcast I realized that it was a virtual projection for the TV audience[0] -- a sort of AR in its own right, since it appears so seamless that I originally thought it was part of the rink.
[0] http://www.sportvision.com/hockey/virtual-advertisements
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google Glass and Spectacles are not even close to the same customer base. Google glass was a luxury beta product for techies with lots of disposable income. Spectacles are targeted towards 15-25yr olds. Google Glass users wanted to use the "future" of technology where as spectacles users want to Snap and share more. I'm surprised their hasn't been nearly the same adverse reaction to spectacles as there was to glass.…
But do the majority of 15 - 25 Snapchat users have $130 to spend on these? I'm asking because I don't know. Also sunglasses seem to get forgotten/lost somewhat regularly no?
So the real question is more has Snapchat and its functionality built enough of a cachet to be valued as highly as something like a Ray Ban.
I do wonder about whether people will find the video-recording-and-sharing aspect creepy. It might help a bit that people don't associate Snapchat as "instantly on the web forever" compared to other services. We'll see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snapchat is targeting teens and young adults with this - not exactly people who have $130 lying around
Did not stop Gopro. If you have been to a ski resort in recent years you have probably noticed that at some point, Gopro saturation started to become inversely proportional to riding skill. Where Gopros are sold with the promise of being like those who get really fast and have spectacularly high jumps, Snapchat specs will be sold with the promise of being like those who get really drunk and have spectacularly great p…
GoPros are a convenient, high-quality, expandable memory camera that creates a regular video file as big as the storage space available that you can use however you want.
Spectacles are a convenient, unknown quality camera creating a ten-second video that requires smartphone interaction, is designed to be on your face, and is tied to one specific (albeit popular) platform.
Aside from both being able to take video and being easy enough to carry around, the products and the target markets don't intersect perfectly, so it's hard to predict one's success from the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$129 is pretty cheap nowadays, you can get a Google Home for that price.
Snapchat is targeting teens and young adults with this - not exactly people who have $130 lying around
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm bullish too, but any comparisons to Facebook are lazy. Snapchat and Facebook are completely orthogonal (the closer competition is Instagram, owned by FB, and Snapchat, but even then I would argue it is lazy to say they are direct competitors, ignoring the Instagram Stories product). For better or worse Facebook is a piece of social infrastructure and utility . Everyone has Facebook. All the groups I know of are o…
Completely anecdotal, but my siblings and cousins that are teens don't have Facebook, and most of their classmates don't either. It's weird to imagine a world where not everyone has Facebook, but I don't think it's as ubiquitous for those who grew up where alternatives existed, such as Snapchat and Instagram (even Twitter as well).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fairy ad business model. Don't know about Facebook (never been) but I keep hearing about this fabled Google Ad business and honestly, not only I can't recall the last time I even noticed one, needless to say have never even clicked on one. Some interested party wants to keep these surveillance cum social networks afloat and the fairy ad business model and overblown evaluations and VC cash is the front for funding…
> I keep hearing about this fabled Google Ad business The one that makes 19 billion dollars per quarter?