Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Snap sold fewer than 42K Spectacles, down 35% in Q2

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 165 posts

Re: Snap sold fewer than 42K Spectacles, down 35% in Q2

#41

Post by Fricken »

pram wrote: post #26
pavlov wrote: post #6

Based on my brief exposure, Spectacles is a very polished product. Everything about it had an aura of breezy, forward-moving fun that is usually absent from tech: the purchase experience at a super-cute vending machine that displays a rendering of the glasses on your face; the yellow carrying case that doubles as extra battery for the glasses; the effortless installation experience; even the round video that invites…

I think the aesthetic of the glasses is flawed, not the technology. They look really goofy. They should have gone with a standard design like Wayfarers, and not something few people could realistically look good in. If they're aiming for mass appeal anyway.

The intent I think was to make it really obvious that the wearer has camera glasses on. They were marketed as a toy, not as spy glasses.

The problem was that nobody knew what to do with them, and Snap being setup the way it is, it's too hard to take cues from what other people might be doing with them because it's hard to find their videos.

The only thing I bring them out for now is to make little cooking videos for my friends, the hands free POV camera is really good for that, and uploading a little narrative is pretty effortless.

Re: Snap sold fewer than 42K Spectacles, down 35% in Q2

#42

Post by jaredandrews »

I personally wouldn't wear Spectacles, but I did expect them to do much better than they have. It seems like people don't feel silly wearing GoPros or carrying selfie sticks so they looked like a logical next step to me.

Some anecdata: I have been traveling the U.S. for the last year, stopping in mostly major cities, and lived in Boston prior to that. In all that time I didn't see a single pair of Spectacles until last month... in Houston, TX of all places!

Re: Snap sold fewer than 42K Spectacles, down 35% in Q2

#43

Post by ghostly_s »

overcast wrote: post #16
relyks wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it easier to get a POV shot by using glasses though? It definitely makes easier and quicker to get shots that you wouldn't normally be able to get. E.g. you see someone doing some cool bike trick on the street. If you take out your phone in an attempt to capture the moment, you might miss it, while if you're using the Spectacles, you might not.

I get it, but for what? I mean, it's such a niche thing. I have to wear these ugly glasses that do ONE thing. Or just use my phone. People have their phones out CONSTANTLY. They spend more time in hands than they do pockets.

> People have their phones out CONSTANTLY. They spend more time in hands than they do pockets.

Um. Not mine. Maybe stop wildly generalizing and your market analysis will improve.

Re: Snap sold fewer than 42K Spectacles, down 35% in Q2

#46

Post by mathperson »

Splendor wrote: post #15

42K is low but the product appeals to a very small segment of consumers: Snapchat users, who don't wear prescription eyeglasses, who happen to have a face shape complimented by the single size/style of Spectacles.

It seems to me an error they don't offer a prescription version yet

Re: Snap sold fewer than 42K Spectacles, down 35% in Q2

#48

Post by drzaiusapelord »

HillRat wrote: post #39
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #3

I'm very surprised how feminine this design is. It has strong overtures towards 50's cat-eye frames and looks exclusively marketed to women. I just ran through all the media/PR stuff I could find for this and can't find any official photos of a man wearing them. I wonder if they would have better luck also selling a male-fashion oriented model. This isn't a hypothetical as I would probably pick these up for ease of v…

Influencer demos skew highly female, so I can't say I'm surprised -- Snap isn't selling to the total market so much as trying to get traction through high-influence users. It's a strategy that requires time, patience, and careful execution, but has the potential to normalize something that Google rather famously failed to do so (and potentially poisoned the concept) with Glass.

Ironically, my wife wouldn't be caught dead in these partly because she has her own defined style and partly because she's not into gadgets like I am, but I would buy them like I wrote above for vacation-esque purposes.

Sounds like it was a flop regardless, but I do think the 'techy dad' market is viable at the right pricepoint. Not sure how the social aspect would work out, but if it had a red LED running when it was recording I doubt anyone would mind.

Re: Snap sold fewer than 42K Spectacles, down 35% in Q2

#49

Post by randyrand »

overcast wrote: post #9

I don't understand the target audience. The reason smartphones are so popular, is because they do basically EVERYTHING for the common person. They aren't going to carry around another silly device to take pics, that was called a camera, and we see how popular those are now. For anyone that is serious, they are already carrying separates.

IMO id rather they made a gopro competitor. Maybe ditch the sunglasses part. Not sure.

I bring my gopro on all my trips. Its a great way to record memories without using up your phone storage or battery. It's also easier to hold, has better FoV, and much better video quality. It's a no brainer. I'm surprised action cams have not hit mainstream as far as trip-devices go.

Re: Snap sold fewer than 42K Spectacles, down 35% in Q2

#50

Post by ghostly_s »

softwarefounder wrote: post #4
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #3

I'm very surprised how feminine this design is. It has strong overtures towards 50's cat-eye frames and looks exclusively marketed to women. I just ran through all the media/PR stuff I could find for this and can't find any official photos of a man wearing them. I wonder if they would have better luck also selling a male-fashion oriented model. This isn't a hypothetical as I would probably pick these up for ease of v…

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.

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.
Post reply on HN