I’ve been meaning to update this thread, but it seems so meaningless.
Above is her first three products: A small printer, a digital camera with printer integrated and glasses with outward facing LCDs.
All of these existed before Lady Gaga was involved and they all look like they were designed before she was involved too.
Here is some background though:
Polaroid actually started as a sunglasses manufacturer. I didn’t know that!
Polaroid went bankrupt in 2001 and eventually, the remains were bought by two holding companies. One specializes in smacking famous people’s names on products. Hilco Consumer Capital: http://www.hilcocc.com/ The interesting thing about Hilco is the other names that they “own”, like Bob Marley. That’s right, he didn’t come back from the dead in order to brand those ear buds on the front page CES 2011: House of Marley Audio - Core77. It was Hilco CC!
Among other holdings, they own Linen n’ Things and The Sharper Image.
Is anyone going to buy these things? I think they will succeed, in as much as they can, because of Polaroid, not Lady Gaga.
The baby printer I think uses dye sub paper, which is a neat technology. I could get into it if it had an “email to print” type of functionality. I think there’s an HP (?) printer that was just announced with something like that.
I like the iconic look of the cam-printer. Don;t know that I’d buy one but the instant gratification factor is always really cool.
The glasses just nauseate me on so many different levels.
That’s what happens when documentation becomes more important than the real world. I should fake myself up some documents showing how I’m a billionaire and try to get people to give me money. I bet I could get 15 years out of scheming too…not bad!
And the Feds had no clue it was happening. He was turned in by his 2nd in command. She cracked under the pressure, and in turn got a huge plea bargain.
Back on topic. I feel like this was a really lame attempt at publicity for Polaroid. I mean, why Lady Gaga in the first place? What makes her some authority on design? Why would a company think that parading a current “It” celeb out to design a line to save the company is a good idea?
That was why I mentioned the holding companies. I think the management doesn’t know as much about product development as they do about buying someone’s name and pasting it on a product.
Good interview with Robert Brunner from Ammunition regarding these products. (They designed them) After reading the interview, I think glasses actually do a good job of setting the tone for revitalizing the brand. At least it wasn’t a meat camera.
I’m liking the details on the top of the camera too.