Can anyone look cool wearing Snap’s $2,000 glasses?

Yesterday, Snap debuted its new $2,195 Specs glasses. In an interview with CNBC, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel described the Specs as something the company had been working on for more than 12 years, an attempt to “bring computing into the world” and “make it more human.” He positioned them as a device to help people stay more connected to the world around them instead of looking down at their phones. People, he said, are tired of screens.

Can anyone look cool wearing Snap’s $2,000 glasses?

Short answer: Of course not. Long answer: Snap probably doesn’t intend for these to be mainstream smart glasses.

While Spiegel was speaking, I was struck by how, whenever his head moved, the light caught the lenses just so, revealing the hidden outline of the Specs’ display. It was ironic that Spiegel was talking about screen fatigue and the desire to connect just as his very product visibly put a screen between him and the interviewer.

But mostly, I was distracted by how goofy the Specs looked on him.

Fashion is subjective, but the Specs are objectively bold and distinctive. They’ve got chunky frames and an angular design that’s vaguely reminiscent of aviators. The arms are ginormous and look awfully heavy atop Spiegel’s ears. If there were absolutely no technology inside them, I’d say they were a statement piece, something typically worn by folks like the fashion icons Iris Apfel, Karl Lagerfeld, or even Edna Mode from The Incredibles.

To be clear, Snap is positioning these as an aspirational, high-fashion gadget. You only have to look at the company’s global advertising campaign, shot by fashion photographer Steven Meisel, known for his work with Vogue and haute couture houses like Versace, Valentino, Dolce & Gabbana, Balenciaga, and Loewe. The models wearing the Specs? Big-name models like Kaia Gerber and Hoyeon, as well as basketball player Jimmy Butler and musicians Jack Harlow and Imogen Heap. Basically, all people known for their unique or eclectic sense of style. The problem is that the number one rule of wearable tech is that the device has to be comfortable — and stylistically versatile — enough for everyday wear. And on that front, Snap is setting these devices up to be worn by very few people.

I firmly believe anyone can pull off bold fashion with enough charisma and self-confidence. But in almost a decade of covering smart glasses, I’ve repeatedly seen that the bolder the design, the less confident the average Joe feels wearing them. Part of why the original Google Glass failed was that the design was too reminiscent of a Dragon Ball Z scouter or a cyberpunk dystopia. It made you easy to spot and easy to ridicule as a glasshole. Likewise, one of the main complaints I heard about the Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses was that the design was too chunky — and those borrowed a familiar, classic Wayfarer silhouette. Part of why the Ray-Ban Meta glasses work so well now is that they’re discreet and look like an ordinary pair of glasses. That’s also likely why the forthcoming Google and Samsung Android XR glasses are partnering with both Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. Warby Parker offers a stylish but low-key option, while Gentle Monster is available for folks with more avant-garde fashion sensibilities.

There’s no option to be discreet wearing the Specs. Perhaps that’s good from a public privacy perspective — you’ll be able to see someone wearing Specs a mile away. But it’s also one major reason why self-conscious folks won’t ever pick these up. (The other is the fact that these are $2,195.) The other problem is that we humans are vain creatures. These devices sit directly on your face and obscure your eyes, the so-called windows to the soul. If you even suspect you’ll look goofy in these, you’re just never going to buy them, even if they’re the most miraculous tech product in the world. If there’s even the off chance that wearing these on a first date won’t get you a second, why would you risk it?

There are other practical reasons why these glasses fail the most important wearable design rules. For starters, the 47mm version weighs 132 grams, while the 52mm version weighs 136g. I found the Meta Ray-Ban Display started hurting my face after a few hours, and those weighed 69g. As a lifelong glasses wearer, I’ve grilled opticians about ideal eyewear weight over the past three decades. (When you have garbage eyeballs and extremely strong prescriptions, lightweight frames are a must to prevent headaches.) Most have told me the ideal weight for lightweight glasses is somewhere between 15 and 25g. Acetate frames (think classic Brooklyn hipster glasses) typically weigh 20 to 35g. Smart glasses typically range from 40 to 70g, and you can definitely feel it after a few hours. At about double that weight, I can’t imagine the Specs are comfortable enough to wear for more than a few hours at a time. Meaning for those of us who need prescriptions, they cannot be your primary pair, and that means you’re spending $2,195 for a secondary pair of glasses.

I find it impossible to believe Snap isn’t fully aware of this. Which is probably why it’s leaning into the haute couture, high-fashion aesthetic. They know that at this price point and at this weight, the Specs aren’t a device that can be a true mainstream hit. It was always going to be for the early adopters, and that’s a crowd that’s maybe more amenable to bolder looks and standing out. And, momentum in the consumer smart glasses space is heating up. If Snap doesn’t want to miss the boat, perhaps the idea is to strike while the iron is hot and hope enough people tag along for the ride for a second- or third-gen model that hews closer to what the average person actually wants.

Look, some people are going to look cool in these. The Meisel pictures are evidence enough of that. But the cold, hard fact is that most of us will look more like Spiegel — kinda dorky, partly goofy, and incredibly conspicuous.