High Fashion Editions Of Google Glass Available To General Public For $1,800
Google, listen: You already have a serious image problem as it pertains to Google Glass. Granted, it’s undeserved, but far too many people view Glass as either a silly, expensive gadget for the snobbiest of techies or a googah for those with too much money to throw around. (Or both.) People are getting physically accosted just because they’re walking down the wrong street or drinking in the wrong bar wearing Glass.
Letting a luxury designer put out Glass editions of its spectacles will only make things worse.
$1800. Really?
You need to work hard to position Glass as something that no one can live without but can also afford to buy. It should be so compelling and packed with so many indispensable features that everyone will feel like it’s a near necessity, like our smartphones have become, and it should be at least as affordable as, say, an iPhone.
You had us all getting excited there for a bit last year when rumors were flying that Glass may cost as little as a few hundred bucks, but all we’ve seen so far is that the initial $1,500 price tag is the baseline; this Net-A-Porter company is selling a limited line of luxury Glass edition eyewear for $1,800 in “DVF | Made For Glass” bundles (designed by Diane von Furstenberg).
Please stop.
Could you be any more tone deaf, Google? This is the first third-party company selling Google Glass, and it’s 1) an eyewear maker instead of a tech company of some kind and 2) marking up the already prohibitively high cost of Glass.
Nobody cares that you can get striking, fashionable Google Glass-infused eyewear in black, green, plum, brown, and white with both frames and a shade as well as mono earbud.
No, seriously, please stop.
Google, maybe you can keep the whole Glass thing afloat by selling the spectacles to the wealthy, but it sure doesn’t seem like a sound strategy to me. How many of these specs do you plan to sell at these too-high price points? I’m guessing not enough to entice developers to create indispensable apps for Glass, and without that crucial developer buy-in, Glass will eventually become exactly what haters have so far been calling it--an expensive toy that annoys everyone except the person wearing them.
You and I both know, Google, that Glass can and should be much more than that. It could be a powerful tool for industry, medicine, and education. It could run incredible games; be used for all manner of hands-free communication; be the next great navigational tool whether you’re in the car, in the woods, or walking downtown; and on and on.
But hey, if instead you want to sell Glass as a pricey fashion accessory, that’s your prerogative.
Letting a luxury designer put out Glass editions of its spectacles will only make things worse.
$1800. Really?
You need to work hard to position Glass as something that no one can live without but can also afford to buy. It should be so compelling and packed with so many indispensable features that everyone will feel like it’s a near necessity, like our smartphones have become, and it should be at least as affordable as, say, an iPhone.
You had us all getting excited there for a bit last year when rumors were flying that Glass may cost as little as a few hundred bucks, but all we’ve seen so far is that the initial $1,500 price tag is the baseline; this Net-A-Porter company is selling a limited line of luxury Glass edition eyewear for $1,800 in “DVF | Made For Glass” bundles (designed by Diane von Furstenberg).
Please stop.
Could you be any more tone deaf, Google? This is the first third-party company selling Google Glass, and it’s 1) an eyewear maker instead of a tech company of some kind and 2) marking up the already prohibitively high cost of Glass.
Nobody cares that you can get striking, fashionable Google Glass-infused eyewear in black, green, plum, brown, and white with both frames and a shade as well as mono earbud.
No, seriously, please stop.
Google, maybe you can keep the whole Glass thing afloat by selling the spectacles to the wealthy, but it sure doesn’t seem like a sound strategy to me. How many of these specs do you plan to sell at these too-high price points? I’m guessing not enough to entice developers to create indispensable apps for Glass, and without that crucial developer buy-in, Glass will eventually become exactly what haters have so far been calling it--an expensive toy that annoys everyone except the person wearing them.
You and I both know, Google, that Glass can and should be much more than that. It could be a powerful tool for industry, medicine, and education. It could run incredible games; be used for all manner of hands-free communication; be the next great navigational tool whether you’re in the car, in the woods, or walking downtown; and on and on.
But hey, if instead you want to sell Glass as a pricey fashion accessory, that’s your prerogative.
