• Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I love that big tech was so arrogant they just plum forgot or choose to ignore why those died then.

    And then above it they still chose the one thing everyone was mad about, a camera. All they had to do was not put a camera in there but they couldn’t resist.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think the product that speaks the most about the camera was the Snapchat Spectacles. Snapchat did everything they could to position it strictly as a fun, party-oriented camera that didn’t try to hide what it was but leaned into the fun ways to use it.

      And they still died out after the initial hype. Which I think is most telling because, like, here’s this product with the most positive take you could possibly have on “glasses with cameras” and people still didn’t want it. So wth makes Google think the creepy no-fun version will catch on?

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I honestly don’t think so. I think they’re up there, but tech “enthusiasts” (read, tech bros and people who think random gadgets are cool) probably are. They’re happy to waste their money and give money to meta. Creeps are definitely number 2 or 3 though.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      90% of the point of these things is having AI analyze what you are looking at (and also monetize it with ads etc).

    • kboos1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Needed the data, if you’re phone is always in your pocket then it’s really hard to get a live video. Better to model their AI to simulate human interactions