No WiFi. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

Lol people post this everytime someone critiques a hyped up new bullshit tech product. Guess what, the vast majority of them fail. Spectacles is not the iPod. It's going to flop, I stand by it.

Your analysis that it is a "gimmick", "bullshit", and "hyped up" is over-simplified and, I think, wrong. There's no need to swear or be mean about this. Some people, myself included (I hate hate hate hate the snapchat app, I'm not able to use it and I can't stand the idea of it) think that Snap does understand product and its market, and has incredible visions for the future with an ability to execute. I think that Snap will be a huge success for a long time to come.

Naysaying Snap is fine, but not if your argument is "bullshit hype".

His argument was cost and lack of utility...

Bullshit hype IS an argument in and of itself and if we can't speak plainly how can we speak honestly?

$129 is pretty cheap nowadays, you can get a Google Home for that price.

Snapchat is targeting teens and young adults with this - not exactly people who have $130 lying around

Did not stop Gopro. If you have been to a ski resort in recent years you have probably noticed that at some point, Gopro saturation started to become inversely proportional to riding skill. Where Gopros are sold with the promise of being like those who get really fast and have spectacularly high jumps, Snapchat specs will be sold with the promise of being like those who get really drunk and have spectacularly great parties. That is a very promising market to tap into, but no way that it could ever be a four billion market.

There are important differences between GoPros and Spectacles, though.

GoPros are a convenient, high-quality, expandable memory camera that creates a regular video file as big as the storage space available that you can use however you want.

Spectacles are a convenient, unknown quality camera creating a ten-second video that requires smartphone interaction, is designed to be on your face, and is tied to one specific (albeit popular) platform.

Aside from both being able to take video and being easy enough to carry around, the products and the target markets don't intersect perfectly, so it's hard to predict one's success from the other.

I base my comparison on the observation that both are purpose built for capturing a very specific kind of experience that few have, but many think they should have (but never will).

This is certainly no predictor of absolute success, just an element of understanding the potential market.

But they do all seem to have $500+ phones already. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that they could afford the glasses if they deem it worth it.