The article says over and over again it's a toy.

Young people, 14-25 are going to buy these and make them cool. Not the 35 year old engineers who bought Google Glass.

Google has never made something cool. Snapchat was cool out of the gate.

>Google has never made something cool.

Gmail was pretty revolutionary when it came out, and nearly everyone in that 14-25 age group uses Chrome.

That's not the same as being cool.

Yes, Chrome is extremely popular among that age group, but many popular things aren't cool. For example, the Big Bang Theory is something very popular but even the fans wouldn't say it's cool.

In fact many things are cool in part because they are not overly popular, and often decrease in coolness as they become popular.

Gmail and Chrome were indeed innovative once, and perhaps you could argue they were cool back then, but today they are just a commodity - people (especially in that age group) just take them for granted, "it's what we use." They aren't cool.

Am I allowed to puke now?

The article also includes fluff about how the glasses captured the experience hiking like no other and assorted hype.

>Young people, 14-25 are going to buy these and make them cool.

No, they are not. These are going to come to nothing, maybe some more fluff pieces. If I'm wrong, be sure to leave a comment here in the future.

I spoke to a 25 year old girl this morning that is not a techie, but likes Snapchat, and she had already heard of the glasses and wanted a pair. Sample size of one, but I'm pretty confident that non-techies will buy them.

The question is whether it can grow to anything bigger than instant film Polaroids, which people also buy and enjoy using at parties, etc.

I think the glasses are stupid, but then again, I thought the whole idea behind snapchat was stupid to begin with, yet here we are.

Obviously my finger is not on the pulse of today's youth. I don't think the kids today will be too inclined to shell out $130 for these gimmicky things, but my judgement on such matters is demonstrably terrible.

Not a kid, but I absolutely love the idea of a camera at eye level that can capture what I'm seeing. Many times I've missed random animal sightings or funny moments because I didn't have a camera at the ready (and sometimes it takes a while to dig out the phone).

I thought about what could go right. It's going to be huge.

It'll be memeable instagram for commodity VR. 10 second FPV clips will become the next creative currency- the new 140 characters. It's an untrodden and instantly democratized new medium, but could only get the needed network effect if it's backed by someone with Snapchat's clout.

By the time useful AR comes to market, Snap will have all the best creative content.

Same problem as Google glasses though, people dont like having a camera pointing at them when they talk to you.

The ten second limit could be helpful for social acceptance, plus these look more like Raybans and not the gargoyle glasses that Google Glass embodied.

If you check the website, you'll see they have lights built around the lens to "show friends your snapping." I imagine this was specifically built to assuage that concern.

Everything you just said are things people said about every iteration in the tablet market. Including the iteration to the iphone.

I'm not personally enamored with these glasses either, but let's be fair. Plenty of folks considered the iphone an expensive tool for douchebags at its release. This is true of nearly all new personal computing products and is not a distinguishing characteristic.

I was comparing the fact that Apple tossed out an unfinished, first iteration of a product that eventually became polished tech.

I'm pointing out that the limitations on these glasses are along the same path.

Seems like a bunch of people didn't catch my point, I'll try and be more clear in the future.

What's with the hate? You realize there's a possibility you will stand corrected?

OH NO i'll be wrong on the internet