Digital clothes, that's the kind of clothes you can see, but you can't touch them. They're for video, and more often they're for photos. And people pay a lot of money for it, say Richard Ma, CEO of Quantstamp spent $9,500 on a digital dress for his wife.
Is that stupid? Of course not.
Let's say the branded dress is $10,000$500 is the dress itself, so to speak, the inner work. So that it lies well on the body, it is comfortable, pleasant to the body, breathes.
If you just need to walk around in it, you don't have to pay too much. Is that right? $9,500 is worth the designer's work - external. If you are a media personality, this is the main thing in this dress. So why overpay this $500 if you wear it three times at most?
And then what? Well, I put on a dress three times in different places. Don't walk the same star in the same place.
Where do you want to go? Throw it away? - That's pathetic. Kirkorov probably has an entire apartment used as old outfits. Let's say there is no Oscar or other event in the near future where a star can light up and interest in himself should be nurtured.
So the star places his photos in new outfits in Instagram.
Why overpay for something you won't even wear? You don't look like that at home. It is cheaper to buy digital clothing that is applied to you using augmented reality technology.
Such clothes can be created from non-existent materials, will be really original.
And then it's easier to store, requires no closet or warehouse like Kirkorov's.
Computer games or where the legs growIn computer games, people buy clothes for their characters. These clothes can not be touched, it does not give advantages in the game. But people spend $50 billion a year on these clothes.
Is that stupid? No dumber than buying or sewing clothes for a Barbie doll.
|Fashion Style Fashion magazines International Sizes Tie Shoelaces Make an appointment Hairs Selection of hairstyles Cosmetics Babies Fashion TV|