Ahh! I went to his SXSW talk this year and was absolutely entranced with the Wolfram language. It seemed like a real step forward in innovative thinking and actual "natural language" programming, but I was sad it's proprietary.
I think the power of it is really undervalued - using all the knowledge of the wolfram-alpha engine to create objects? Such a neat idea! Imagine if Google built a similar language based on their search engine data - the kinds of programs people could build and might accidentally build just playing around boggle the mind.
In some sense it is surprising that Google hasn't done this already. After all, Mozilla has seen fit to work on Rust, which will soon replace C++ (god willing). But if you're organizing the world's information, don't you need a programming language that can work with that information in a first-class way?
We had it already, but the world wasn't prepared for it.
I experienced the same feeling when I got to work in Smalltalk back in 1996 and a few years ago started gathering information about Lisp machines and the systems developed at Xerox PARC.
Based on the colors chosen for the site (blue for the button - i.e., boys click the button - and pink for the title logo - i.e., the gift is for girls), the images (jewelry, women's shoes, a notebook that says "LOVE"), and the 'spoilee' suggestions (your lady crush, that girl at work), this site seems unfortunately and unnecessarily supportive of a heterosexual and outdated men-giveto-women gender binary.
I feel like if you made the imagery and wording more inclusive, you could have a really neat thing that appeals to a much broader audience of gift-givers.
Fascinating articles, and judging especially by the "SexTech Startups in a Hostile Business World," it seems like sextech would do well to be added to YC's 'New Requests for Startups' list...
Well, I was responding mainly to Jiggity's claims that this watch has no clear purpose, no "X" that everyone "NEEDS TO HAVE" - since it does seem to have somewhat indistinct function, it needs to sell itself mainly on fashion, and I would argue it will succeed at that.
I totally agree with this ^. The key to wearables is to make them fashionable - to make them into something a lot of people want to wear, and want others to see them wearing.
Wearable devices are still very much on the fringe - mainly due to lack of style - and style is very individual. This watch, regardless of its somewhat indistinct purpose, will be able to appeal, on beauty alone, to a vastly larger group of people than it otherwise would if it were "the one."
