That's a good point. I agree that $499 is the sweet spot.And pricing will have to be in the $500 range (like theWatch).
That's a good point. I agree that $499 is the sweet spot.And pricing will have to be in the $500 range (like theWatch).
I believe people were saying the same thing about the Apple Watch at the beginning.
Branded frames can cost thousands of dollars, if not more, without any functionality other than fashion accessory. If Apple can make one that's also functional, it can sell.
Apple's Glasses are not being marketed to correct vision. Rather, they're the visual interface into Apple's world of augmented reality experiences and technologies. That the lenses can be made to correct for vision deficiencies is icing.
Kind of like AirPods and Beats headphone, in that you only wear them when you want to listen to music or make phone calls. And not something that's in/on your ears 24/7.
I’d be looking at the girls. Lol. Would forget why I was there.I’ve never understood that idea. If I were stood in front of a crowd of naked humans you can bet your naked arse I’ll be nervous!
I used to wear glasses and I hated it. You have a frame around your vision; you have uncomfortable bits on your nose and the sides of your head; it interferes with other things like sunglasses, HMDs, safety goggles, big headphones; you can’t see when you first wake up and you have to take them off if you just lie down for a nap; they get knocked off when you put a jumper on or off. They’re just awful. I got laser eye treatment as soon as I was old enough and could get the loan. I loved it and I still love it (this was around fifteen years ago).Not according to anyone I know who wears them. Almost my whole family wears glasses, my wife and her family largely wear glasses. At best, they tolerate them, at worst they prefer to squint than to find them and put them on. They're a solution to a problem (poor eyesight). I just don't see what problem smart glasses are a solution to.
The watch was an easy sell, most people that stopped wearing a watch recognized the utility of wearing an Apple one.
It'll be an interesting marketing experiment.
I'm 36 and am lucky to have not required glasses in my life, as of yet.
I know my days are numbered and some day soon I'll probably need supermarket readers, but how does Apple convince people that don't need glasses... to wear their expensive option? The watch was an easy sell, most people that stopped wearing a watch recognized the utility of wearing an Apple one.
Why not? My glasses cost $700 a pair and all they do is match my shirt.The prescription lens YNH big is the hardest part. Won’t sell many of these with $500 lens on top of the $$ for the glasses them selves
Are you willing to pay $1200-1400Why not? My glasses cost $700 a pair and all they do is match my shirt.
I pay $400 for 2 pair. Can’t imagine $700 pair. Your frames must be outrageous $Are you willing to pay $1200-1400
I'm still very skeptical about the value of these. For people who don't already wear glasses, the benefits would have to be so overwhelmingly strong to offset the hassle of now having to wear something on your face in order to use it.
You don't have to wear a phone on your face though. We use our hands to interact with things all the time. The face is a much more valuable real estate.However, nobody thinks twice about the “hassle” of constantly grabbing our phones anytime we get up and move to a new location. As long as the utility is there, people will adjust their habits to accompany the devices.
I think it should initially be a companion device to the iPhone, relying on it for most of the processing power. Then, over time, they can separate it more from the iPhone much like they did with the Apple Watch. It’s just the nature of how these things work. I’d rather have more features in a pair of glasses that looks fairly normal and I think that’s the best way to achieve it. The main problem is that’s a lot of data to shuttle back and forth wirelessly.
Also being a wearer of glasses for 35+ years It is less of a hassle over what some think.Semitransparent could mean a lot of things. It could mean a fogged lens with 1% light transmission or it could mean 99%. It could also mean something similar to the switchable LCD privacy glass that exists—it could be the entire panel or they could just install the film in a specific region that turns opaque/translucent and project the screen info there.
[automerge]1594397122[/automerge]
As someone that's worn glasses for 35 years it's less of a hassle than you may think—especially when you're able to experience the benefits in the moment. Give it time, I'm sure we'll all be convinced.
I went back and compared 2020 vs 2019 keynotes and you can see the glasses are different. A little more structure. Might have been a prototype with corrective lenses.I was strongly watching his glasses during the WWDC keynote. I swear his looked different than before and I was almost certain he had the "Apple Glasses" on; I just about expected that to be the "One more thing..." but of course Apple Silicon was an even bigger attraction, which was plenty justified. But wouldn't that have been awesome? Like Steve did for the iPod nano reveal...
What are you even talking about?Of course Android will have to copy Apple as they always do. Perhaps Android will implement this not long after Apple, hopefully by 2013. Oh wait...
I went back and compared 2020 vs 2019 keynotes and you can see the glasses are different. A little more structure. Might have been a prototype with corrective lenses.
View attachment 932910View attachment 932909