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

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#81

Post by petercooper »

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.

I guess it just feels weird. Dropping in photos and emojis to that sort of context has become too much a part of normal friendly communication now that I feel a bit hamstrung without it. Luckily Facebook Messenger is the almost universal workaround for now.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#82

Post by ecspike »

notahacker wrote: post #66
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…

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 ni…

Here we go again with the undying myth of everyone/most with Glass all secretly recording everyone. Glass is no more surreptitious than Spectacles.

My peer group used Glass for active stuff. We took video of ourselves rollerblading, playing hockey, doing OCRs, playing with our kids. The battery was never good enough to record that long. It would become physically uncomfortable because the battery would become hot against your temple.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#83

Post by notahacker »

ecspike wrote: post #82
notahacker wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ni…

Here we go again with the undying myth of everyone/most with Glass all secretly recording everyone. Glass is no more surreptitious than Spectacles. My peer group used Glass for active stuff. We took video of ourselves rollerblading, playing hockey, doing OCRs, playing with our kids. The battery was never good enough to record that long. It would become physically uncomfortable because the battery would become hot aga…

I'm sure all of that is true. Which doesn't change the tendency of people to think that the person looking at them who might be recording the conversation to send to their internet buddies is a weirdo. Thats true whether the distinctive-looking video-augmented eyepiece is Google bland or Snapchat childish

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#84

Post by Apocryphon »

hownottowrite wrote: post #37
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…

Why wait? Just read Tokyo Ghost. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Ghost "Tokyo Ghost is an ongoing American science fiction comics series written by Rick Remender, drawn by Sean Murphy and colored by Matt Hollingsworth, published since September 2015 by Image Comics. The series is set in 2089, a time when humanity is addicted to technology and entertainment. It follows the story of constables Debbie Decay…

It kinda looks like Transmetropolitan in style. Are they similar?

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#85

Post by Apocryphon »

RossM wrote: post #18
drivingmenuts wrote: post #10

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

Snapchat-loyal press have been well trained to highlight the spinning LEDs and not question the privacy angle. Perhaps they're "ok" with it because clips are shorter and it's not the big bad G. IMO while it's more noticeable than Glass's single pixel it's still a concealed camera.

People wear sunglasses on the top of their head, behind their head, etc. all the time. When they do that with Spectacles, they won't be directly pointing at the people they're talking to. So there's a potential for privacy-respecting etiquette with Spectacles- I have them on my forehead, I can't be recording you. Dunno if that was ever possible with Google Glass.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#86

Post by Apocryphon »

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 .

We just elected a Twitter troll for president.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#87

Post by hownottowrite »

Apocryphon wrote: post #84
hownottowrite wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wait? Just read Tokyo Ghost. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Ghost "Tokyo Ghost is an ongoing American science fiction comics series written by Rick Remender, drawn by Sean Murphy and colored by Matt Hollingsworth, published since September 2015 by Image Comics. The series is set in 2089, a time when humanity is addicted to technology and entertainment. It follows the story of constables Debbie Decay…

It kinda looks like Transmetropolitan in style. Are they similar?

There are some echoes, which you'd expect with a near future dystopian vibe. However, in the Tokyo Ghost world everything is already fubar - everyone knows it and no one is surprised by anything horrible.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#88

Post by tptacek »

ethanbond wrote: post #76
maxerickson wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

It helps Vanguard because they don't make money through active trading: they are literally the vanguard of the movement, now practically accepted as orthodoxy, that funds should be passive and diversified across the whole market.

If you buy and hold, HFT helps you, by reducing the cost of execution --- both by reducing the spread, which is a tax you pay any time you place a market order, and by literally reducing trading fees. In fact, even if you're an active trader, HFT usually helps you: the only people truly harmed by HFT are the ones who tried to make a living selling liquidity before, who are now being outcompeted.

Re: Why Snapchat didn’t give Spectacles to techies

#89

Post by vostok »

ethanbond wrote: post #34
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 would love to hear an explanation of how beating the next guy by 1ms is helping the world enough to justify obscene payouts. Go for it.

So first, why it's important for me that we're able to trade continuously. Suppose I'm an HFT who trades the S&P 500 ETF. I put out a buy order at 217.75 and a sell order at 217.76.

If a trader comes in an buys the ETF from me at 217.76 then I need to be able to hedge immediately in other products. Without continuous trading I would need to quote wider.

Second, HFTs make less money per dollar traded than the people who used to do this. In a sense, HFTs "won" because they were willing to do this cheaper than anyone else.

This is different from investment banking, where it's my impression that they get paid these huge fees because CEOs hire their friends and pay them with shareholders' money.

Post reply on HN