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

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#61

Post by maxerickson »

ethanbond wrote: post #54
yummyfajitas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those things can't be meaningfully separated from the market.

Exploiting inefficiencies in a competing algorithm is the same type of thing as exploiting inefficiencies in the mental model of the guy standing next to you. Taking advantage of better market proximity is the same type of thing as drinking less than the other guys in the pit.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#62

Post by crush_xc »

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…

The reason why it's not a privacy issue? You can tell when someone is snapping with spectacles. You could have no idea someone was taking a photo with glass. It's different.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#63

Post by crush_xc »

coev wrote: post #59
petercooper wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

some people don't want to text, regardless if you're on an iphone or not. I've had people I just don't talk to much anymore because they only want to use iMessage and hate when it's the different color for someone out of the ecosystem.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#64

Post by TeMPOraL »

edblarney wrote: post #46
trymas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is a tech company - and they had absolutely no idea how to market and position those glasses to consumers. wat. 1. G-glass != snapchat spectacles. 2. IMHO google tried to create new accessory - smart glasses, they first wanted to introduce it to developers to create apps for it. 3. Either: 3.1. Google saw that it was not worth it at that time. Google is in business of making money after all and not in busine…

If they wold like hotcakes 3.1 would not matter and 3.2 would be rectified enough to assuage the plebes. Your point 'they tried to create a new accessory': why is a tech company trying to create an 'accessory' that nobody wants, and is completely out of their domain? Snapchat is very intelligently extending their brand and user experience a little bit. Google was pushing tech. Things that we wear, are part of our cul…

> why is a tech company trying to create an 'accessory' that nobody wants

Isn't this how, well, almost all consumer tech is created? Nobody wanted cellphones before cellphones. Nobody wanted smartphones before smartphones. Users don't demand things, they choose from what's available.

Google created a pretty cool piece of tech, and I'm personally saddened it failed. Hopefully someone else does the marketing part right. Or even better, I hope that maybe component prices will go down (particularly, prisms for AR displays); I'd happily build a DIY solution for myself.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#65

Post by TeMPOraL »

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 recognize that otherizing an inevitable technology (ubiquitous connected vision) is taking the wrong side of history, but I hope my grandchildren make fun of my children for it.

I'm "otherizing" that technology because it's a fucked up, perverted version of what it should be. Instead of interconnected, interoperable tools we get shiny, vendor locked-in toys. Mostly useless, crippled by shitty apps and not working well with anything. I myself want to wear tech on my face, just not the kind of shit that companies want to make.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#66

Post by notahacker »

edblarney wrote: post #46
trymas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is a tech company - and they had absolutely no idea how to market and position those glasses to consumers. wat. 1. G-glass != snapchat spectacles. 2. IMHO google tried to create new accessory - smart glasses, they first wanted to introduce it to developers to create apps for it. 3. Either: 3.1. Google saw that it was not worth it at that time. Google is in business of making money after all and not in busine…

If they wold like hotcakes 3.1 would not matter and 3.2 would be rectified enough to assuage the plebes. Your point 'they tried to create a new accessory': why is a tech company trying to create an 'accessory' that nobody wants, and is completely out of their domain? Snapchat is very intelligently extending their brand and user experience a little bit. Google was pushing tech. Things that we wear, are part of our cul…

Google Glass was "almost universally used and appreciated benefits of Android tablets/phones in front of your face". Its potential for mainstream use was limited because most people don't want to socialise with someone with a surreptitious recording device attached to their head.

Snapchat is "mildly addictive product within certain demographics in front of your face". Reasons to assume that it will remain a tiny niche product, probably even within the Snapchat demographic, include most people not wanting to socialise with someone with a surreptitious recording device attached to their head

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#67

Post by ethanbond »

maxerickson wrote: post #61
ethanbond wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those things can't be meaningfully separated from the market. Exploiting inefficiencies in a competing algorithm is the same type of thing as exploiting inefficiencies in the mental model of the guy standing next to you. Taking advantage of better market proximity is the same type of thing as drinking less than the other guys in the pit.

If you presuppose that the purpose of trading is to make money in and of itself then sure. Of course the real (original?) purpose is more tightly coupled to reality and to real goods exchanging hands. There seems to be a fundamental difference between profiting from the exchange and profiting from the mechanism of exchange.

I'm not asking for how we ended up here. I get that faster = better and 1ms faster is still 1ms better. What I'm asking is what value it brings to the world — specifically the world outside of, historically, the pit, and today, outside of the computers executing trades.

Are goods more accurately priced? Is there more liquidity in the market? Is the market more stable? Is the market more efficient, or is it only the technical implementation of the market that's made more efficient by these? Do these benefits, if they're present, outweigh the cost of things like flash crashes caused by algorithms? If flash crashes hurt all of us, then shouldn't we all be benefited by the algorithms when they're doing well? Do we benefit and by how much?

This is why people want "nerdy HFTs" to be taxed in a special way. Maybe it's because they can't articulate the value or maybe it's because there is no value. I can't see the difference and I can't get anything other than evasive comparisons when I ask what the difference is.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#68

Post by hanoz »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #10

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

> Did they fix the privacy issues that arose with Google glasses?

Yes, thus: being filmed by a geek - creepy, being filmed by the cultural elite - you should be so lucky.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#69

Post by yummyfajitas »

Inconel wrote: post #56
yummyfajitas wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have not read "Flash Boys: Not So Fast", so I can't comment on it. I do however recommend completely skipping Flash Boys - it provides almost no new information and a lot of FUD.

If you want an introduction to HFT, I'll shamelessly plug my blog posts which describe the basic mechanics of it:

https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology2.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_whats_broken.htm...

I also wrote a few posts later on about controversial HFT topics: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/flash_crash_flash_in... https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/fervent_defense_of_f... https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/quote_stuffing_is_a_...

My posts probably read more like a "how to program python" tutorial than a compelling Michael Lewis narrative, however.

The book Trading and Exchanges ( http://amzn.to/2f0qtJb ) goes into a lot more detail than my blog, but it costs about $50-$90.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#70

Post by yummyfajitas »

ethanbond wrote: post #54
yummyfajitas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the tall loud guys exploited inefficiencies in trading pits and human perception. Ask yourself why I explicitly described them as "tall loud guys in brightly colored jackets"? Those are not irrelevant details.

HFTs do the exact same thing that pit traders did. They just do it faster and cheaper.

And if you really think they don't provide a useful service, you can very easily NOT buy their services - just change one flag in FIX. The question to ask yourself is why everyone chooses to trade with them.

https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/how_to_not_get_rippe...

Post reply on HN