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

Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#51

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #47
vostok wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think viewing the HFT tax propoals as being motivated by anti-nerd rather than a out accumulation of wealth that is perceived to be at the expense of people like the tax supporter where the tax supporter fails to see the social utility of the function producing the accumulation of wealth is, well, a significant case of seeing what you want to see rather than what is actually there.

Go read Flash Boys. It's almost literally "Revenge of the Jocks". You have a jock (Katsuyama) who is naively bro-ing down and schmoozing clients while selling button pushing services to them.

Suddenly some evil nerds come along and use computers to "pick him off"! ("Pick off" is a wonderful phrase Michael Lewis uses but never defines, but it somehow involves computers doing evil things.)

Finally, at the end, Katsuyama builds a new exchange with no nerds allowed.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#52

Post by yummyfajitas »

ethanbond wrote: post #48
maxerickson wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lay out the case for the payouts being obscene. Probably keep in mind that the nominal value of the stocks changing hands on a given day is hundreds of billions of dollars and that an actively trading counterparty is facilitating the movement of that money. What's fair compensation for that?

How did markets function prior to HFT? They're only facilitating exchange between other algorithms, right? And in that case how is it helpful to the market? Note I'm actually asking these questions - not just being rhetorical. The whole concept of it seems plainly ridiculous to me but I don't know much about this area.

How did markets function prior to HFT?

You had 10 very tall loud guys in brightly colored jackets yelling at each other in a pit. Mentally they were running the same algorithms as HFTs, just slower.

Later on you had some fast fingered guys watching charts and mentally running the same algorithms as guys in the pit, just a bit faster.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#53

Post by Lewton »

trymas wrote: post #24
jknoepfler wrote: post #5

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…

>In the meantime, I think Snapchat's marketing angle is ingenious. IMHO it's not something very ingenious, they are shooting ideas - some of them stick to the wall. > They built trust in the community of shameless consumers ..and that's why the idea sticks (just like whole snapchat et al.). It's shameless and to put it more straight - frequently egoistic (and maybe arrogant as well?) users who use this and go crazy a…

Hm, yes... Let's ponder for a moment on why, when a data mining company sells a product that gives them access to a ton of private data, people are skeptical. While a company whose main product is built on the concept of deleting data, doing the same thing, gets a pass?

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#54

Post by ethanbond »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #52
ethanbond wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did markets function prior to HFT? They're only facilitating exchange between other algorithms, right? And in that case how is it helpful to the market? Note I'm actually asking these questions - not just being rhetorical. The whole concept of it seems plainly ridiculous to me but I don't know much about this area.

How did markets function prior to HFT? You had 10 very tall loud guys in brightly colored jackets yelling at each other in a pit. Mentally they were running the same algorithms as HFTs, just slower. Later on you had some fast fingered guys watching charts and mentally running the same algorithms as guys in the pit, just a bit faster.

Except the people were exploiting inefficiencies in markets (and still do today). HFT algorithms exploit inefficiencies in servers, ISPs, fiber optic cable, a competing algorithm's implementation, etc.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#55

Post by usrusr »

bitwize wrote: 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 .

The same way that Oculus () could never market to the Kardashians of the world. Different products, different target audience. Complaining about that is almost like complaining about the lack of dentures care products aimed at teens.

( it's kind of crazy how many aspects, technical and otherwise, one can come up with in which Snapchat spectacles and the Oculus Rift are exact opposites of each other, starting with one receives pixel streams from the outside, the other sends them to the inside)

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#56

Post by Inconel »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #51
dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think viewing the HFT tax propoals as being motivated by anti-nerd rather than a out accumulation of wealth that is perceived to be at the expense of people like the tax supporter where the tax supporter fails to see the social utility of the function producing the accumulation of wealth is, well, a significant case of seeing what you want to see rather than what is actually there.

Go read Flash Boys. It's almost literally "Revenge of the Jocks". You have a jock (Katsuyama) who is naively bro-ing down and schmoozing clients while selling button pushing services to them. Suddenly some evil nerds come along and use computers to "pick him off"! ("Pick off" is a wonderful phrase Michael Lewis uses but never defines, but it somehow involves computers doing evil things.) Finally, at the end, Katsuyam…

I was planning on reading Flash Boys at some point but if this is your overall description of the book my enthusiasm has been tempered.

Have you read, and if so, would you recommend I read Flash Boys: Not So Fast by Peter Kovac for a more balanced/informed perspective on the subject? Should I read both? Keep in mind my knowledge of HFT is extremely limited.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#57

Post by 1_2__3 »

edblarney wrote: post #42
bitwize wrote: 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 .

* The glasses are not a tech product * And Snapchat is * not a tech company * That's an important thing to get first :)

Yes they are and yes it is. Marketing is trying to convince you otherwise and I'm a little shocked you swallow it so easily.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#58

Post by trymas »

Lewton wrote: post #53
trymas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the meantime, I think Snapchat's marketing angle is ingenious. IMHO it's not something very ingenious, they are shooting ideas - some of them stick to the wall. > They built trust in the community of shameless consumers ..and that's why the idea sticks (just like whole snapchat et al.). It's shameless and to put it more straight - frequently egoistic (and maybe arrogant as well?) users who use this and go crazy a…

Hm, yes... Let's ponder for a moment on why, when a data mining company sells a product that gives them access to a ton of private data, people are skeptical. While a company whose main product is built on the concept of deleting data, doing the same thing, gets a pass?

I would be extremely doubtful of that.

IMHO next step for snapchat is somewhere in AR and I bet that they are using data from their users for testing/training their face recognition. Also pictures/videos can be one of their assets for creating other features/products. Snapchat has ads, so data collection for ad targeting is extremely likely.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#59

Post by coev »

petercooper wrote: post #30
jknoepfler wrote: post #5

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…

I look forward to a future in which we are all wearing ridiculously walled-garden tech on our faces I'm already experiencing this in the small with people who are glued to the Apple ecosystem (I'm a Mac user, I just don't use an iPhone or Facetime, etc). Some people are so into iMessage and not on WhatsApp/Snapchat/whatever, that it actually impedes communication with them.

Why not just text them? It works everywhere.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#60

Post by Lewton »

trymas wrote: post #58
Lewton wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, yes... Let's ponder for a moment on why, when a data mining company sells a product that gives them access to a ton of private data, people are skeptical. While a company whose main product is built on the concept of deleting data, doing the same thing, gets a pass?

I would be extremely doubtful of that. IMHO next step for snapchat is somewhere in AR and I bet that they are using data from their users for testing/training their face recognition. Also pictures/videos can be one of their assets for creating other features/products. Snapchat has ads, so data collection for ad targeting is extremely likely.

My phrasing was a little muddy.

It's not really relevant whether Snapchat does data mining behind the scenes. But their brand is built upon ephemeral data. The exact opposite of Google.

It has nothing to do with "short memory" when the public reacts less creeped out than when google tried to push a similar product.

Post reply on HN