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

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#71

Post by Inconel »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #69
Inconel wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://ww…

I appreciate your response. I'm familiar with your blog but I haven't set a time aside to review your posts on HFT. I will certainly do so now. Thanks for linking me the relevant posts.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#73

Post by maxerickson »

ethanbond wrote: post #67
maxerickson wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 1m…

Borrowing a point from tptacek, Vanguard has come out and said that they have lower costs due to HFT. Their customers save money over the previous providers of liquidity.

https://www.ft.com/content/ff8c6486-cb37-11e3-ba95-00144feab...

(bounce "Vanguard chief defends high-frequency trading firms" through Google if there is a paywall)

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#75

Post by edblarney »

1_2__3 wrote: post #57
edblarney wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* 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.

"Marketing is trying to convince you otherwise and I'm a little shocked you swallow it so easily"

I've worked in marketing and tech, I know the difference.

Snapchat is not a technology company, any more than Nike is.

Nike is a consumer marketing/apparel/fashion company, that invests a lot in 'sports tech' and used to be (in the 1970's) more of a purely sports tech company, but made the shift to lifestyle/brand apparel in the 1980's.

Snapchat is as much a 'technology' company as MTV, Pixar, Zara or Wallmart.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#76

Post by ethanbond »

maxerickson wrote: post #73
ethanbond wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 1m…

Borrowing a point from tptacek, Vanguard has come out and said that they have lower costs due to HFT. Their customers save money over the previous providers of liquidity. https://www.ft.com/content/ff8c6486-cb37-11e3-ba95-00144feab... (bounce "Vanguard chief defends high-frequency trading firms" through Google if there is a paywall)

Awesome, I appreciate the link. It's still not totally clear to me how/why this helps Vanguard, or whether the pros outweigh the cons for the market as a whole, but this is in fact the type of evidence that I've been asking for. Thank you for sharing!

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#77

Post by dilap »

geon wrote: post #25
dilap wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probably the same in practice, but glass really looked like it was trying to be inconspicuous / disappear, which made it much creepier. specs are so clearly conspicuous and not trying to hide that it makes them seem more harmless. also, i'd say there's a general cultural trend of becoming more and more comfortable with less and less privacy.

> glass really looked like it was trying to be inconspicuous / disappear How? If anything, the lense-less frame with a bulge on the side is very noticable.

well, it didn't do a great job of it :)

to me, it still looks stylistically like it's trying to disappear, like it wants to blend in and become unnoticable. it doesn't seem to be making an obvious "i'm here" fashion statement like the specs.

obviously it's a subjective emotional statement and difficult to support or refute, but i really do believe the vastly different appearances of the two products probably has a lot to do with the different reactions they are receiving.

people are emotional, visual creates.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#78

Post by edblarney »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #64
edblarney wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Nobody wanted cellphones before cellphones."

Everybody wanted them. Do you remember 'car phones'?

Everybody wanted something they could hold in their hands to talk to other people.

Nobody wants a 'computer on their face' which looks like a computer, and doesn't do much.

Snapchats glasses fit perfectly with the Snapchat experience, which on the whole is nothing like most other chat apps, and nothing like Google.

Snapchats glasses are focused on sharing 'serendipitous moments of irreverence among young people' - and that's exactly their brand promise.

I'm not sure if these glasses will become mainstay or grow to be something bigger - but everyone in tech should take note of how Snapchat is doing this.

It's brilliant. Nobody in the Valley - save maybe Apple - even comes close to this kind of smart consumer marketing.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#79

Post by edblarney »

ohstopitu wrote: post #45
edblarney wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Excatly! it does not integrate with anything else apart from Snapchat (hence, it does not market/depend on the tech folks)!

"(hence, it does not market/depend on the tech folks)!"

You're right - but that was not my point.

It's not so much an issue of 'how it integrates' with other apps.

Snapchat is focused on 'sharing irreverent, serendipitous experiences among young people'. Technology is a means to that, and that is all.

They are a lifestyle brand more than a tech company.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#80

Post by dragonwriter »

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 thinking more of outside support for the proposal. Pretty obviously, the inside-the-industry support is just supporting burdens imposed selectively on competing business models, which is common independent of nerd/jock associations.
Post reply on HN