[HN Gopher] Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr
___________________________________________________________________
Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr
Author : vitabenes
Score : 69 points
Date : 2021-08-30 09:26 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.retaildive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.retaildive.com)
| istingray wrote:
| Owning this data myself seems worthwhile. Being able to query a
| shop's clothes without giving up my dataset, i.e. each
| measurement and each shirt being anonymized so the vendor can't
| simply see all my measurements. Think there's a name for this
| process.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the issue is
| that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been: standardized
| and quantified. Do both and a 3D fitting room wouldn't be
| necessary to begin with.
| yeldarb wrote:
| A recent 99% Invisible dove into the history of standardized
| sizing that was really interesting (apparently most of the data
| on human measurements used in industry comes from US military
| research): https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/
| doikor wrote:
| One problem with that is that not all the articles are the same
| size. You can order 1000 t-shirts in the same size from a
| manufacturer and not all of them will be the same size
| (especially if you order the cheapest you can find).
|
| This is mainly due to cheap fabrics stretching unevenly (roll
| to roll difference and beginning of the roll can stretch
| differently from the end) and if you cut them by pressing
| through a thick stack the ones at different spots in the stack
| stretch differently during the cut and thus end up different
| size even if "cut" to the same size.
| clipradiowallet wrote:
| As someone totally ignorant of this industry... how can those
| problems be fixed? Is it an issue of using higher quality
| materials, or some factory process change?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Inexpensive, quality of construction, reliable sizing.
|
| Pick two.
| rhacker wrote:
| What if we ended up with a system where I know I'm a B29.
|
| Then after every shirt made, it's tested against the B26 -
| B34 (since it's probably somewhere in there) and then
| labelled as a fit for B29.
|
| Then I just go shopping for B29s.
| bee_rider wrote:
| You'd be mapping a multi-dimensional space to a single
| dimensional one, which might work, but would probably be
| less intuitive. In the very least, we'd probably want
| something like a small/medium/large, then some extra info
| about the shoulders, and then a little bit more info for
| guys who want a tight fit (those guys with abs to show
| off). You could map those all on to 26-34, but I think it
| would not really help much.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| This is also a male / female -type body distinction.
|
| I'd argue men have about 4 primary body shapes (roughly,
| height:shoulders:waist:hips), within which most are +/- a
| bit.
|
| Women have... a lot more.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Yeah. I implicitly assumed we were talking about guys
| because the idea of simplifying women's sizes just seems
| intractable.
| wtvanhest wrote:
| Assuming B29 is a series of measurements, this is the right
| solution in my opinion. The challenge is the cost of
| measuring and tagging every item after production. The
| relationship to model out is cost of pre-measuring every
| garment vs cost of returns. If you could dramatically lower
| your return rate you may be able to be more profitable
| measuring every garment. But... even measuring successfully
| presents challenges.
|
| Going in to a store would seem absolutely insane if you
| could just order tons of stuff in your size and it all fits
| and you would not have to make returns.
| Cd00d wrote:
| "Sorry, B29 is a mild outlier in terms of sizing - only 5%
| of the population wears B29 so we don't keep that in
| stock."
|
| I had this problem when I was younger with an outlier
| waist/inseam ratio. I was only one inseam size out of
| "normal" but had to catalog order my pants. I wonder how it
| would work now with modern supply chain efficiencies. Back
| then I could rely on a warehouse _somewhere_ having my
| size, but just-in-time may not allow room for that.
|
| I love the idea though. As someone who rarely finds a
| t-shirt where I like the fit (either too tight or too
| long), I'd love to just have something I could count on. I
| can't even rely on just getting the same size from the same
| store each time.
| rhacker wrote:
| If we got away from factory clothes and moved to a model
| where someone made two or three year's worth of clothes
| for $500 (well I guess the price would be based on your
| packages??)
|
| Then the clothing designer would input B29 and it would
| adjust all sorts of things and print out a pattern. Then
| the clothing designer could "test fit" the final shirt on
| a really cool adjustomatic mannequin made of weird
| pistons and balloons. Ok that last part is unlikely to
| happen but it sounds awesome.
| msandford wrote:
| > If we got away from factory clothes and moved to a
| model where someone made two or three year's worth of
| clothes for $500
|
| Lovely idea but what do the poor fools do whose weights
| are going up and down? I mean I know that's not 80% of
| the population on a given year but there is some value to
| being able to buy just a few garments at a time that fit
| approximately correctly right now, even if they won't
| really in another six months.
| mint2 wrote:
| Actually one of the issues is also standardization.
|
| Finding someone that is average on just four or five dimensions
| is extremely rare. Bucketing people into a handful of clusters
| and taking those averages is only a marginal improvement.
| Brands standardizing to those same clusters make it impossible
| for many people to find fitting clothes.
|
| It's just like shoes. For a given length, at most about 30-40%
| of the foot widths can be accommodated without offering
| multiple widths. And most shoes only come in one width.
| brandall10 wrote:
| Body types vary widely though. If you're athletic you may have
| a strong shoulder to hip drop, getting shirts that are blousy
| in the midsection. Conversely, if you're heavy set or short you
| may get garments that are overly long.
|
| Some companies do try to address this to a degree with slim or
| athletic cuts, and yes a tailor could take you the rest of the
| way 'mostly' there, but the future of clothing is 3D scanning
| and printing.
| mbesto wrote:
| > Body types vary widely though.
|
| The GP is more referring to companies who deliberately don't
| conform to standards. Best example of this is women's
| clothing that alter sizes so they are more appealing to women
| who don't traditionally fit that size number.
|
| TL;DR - "Omg I finally fit in a size 2 dress" is a huge
| selling point, even if its not categorically true.
| endisneigh wrote:
| A 3D fitting room isn't going to solve the issues you mention
| tho.
|
| I also think what you're describing could be easily solved
| with more measurements of clothing you're considering.
| zokier wrote:
| 3D fitting is first step for custom fitted to order
| clothes, like Amazons "Made for You" t-shirts
| https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-custom-fit-t-
| shirts-u...
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I can't imagine 3D printing clothing working for most kinds
| of garments any time soon. Just mechanically stitching
| straight seams with a robot has proven to be nearly
| impossible. It might be economically feasible to laser cut
| some fabrics and drive down MTM costs, but you can already do
| that fairly cheaply with existing tech.
| mc32 wrote:
| As exemplified by the old threadbase post: https://web.archiv
| e.org/web/20160318074519/threadbase.com/un...
|
| The sizes vary within brands themselves.
|
| Traditionally the solution was to get a tailor take your
| measurements and make a pattern for you and cut from cloth to
| make you a garment. Obviously, in today's day and age, that
| gets a bit expensive for most people.
| bluGill wrote:
| I'm waiting the day when I go into a store and the fitting
| room scans my body (naked or just underwear) and then it
| creates an outfit just for my body. We could probably pull
| it off already, but it can't compete with third world
| produced on price, and those are good enough.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think there have been failed attempts at this over the
| past 20 years or so. If you're willing to wait, they
| could do this somewhat affordably --just won't be off the
| rack fast (week or two?)
|
| That said, a tailor will make you pose properly and not
| slouch or droop your shoulder, so they would take better
| measurements. Presumably, SW could correct for bad
| posture as well.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Measurement is easy. Even the elastic deformation (i.e.
| multiple poses).
|
| Manufacturing at scale is currently impossible.
|
| Tailoring is basically robotics' worst nightmare: input
| material with varying characteristics from batch to
| batch, delicate materials, multiple different motions and
| tasks, a non-reducible movement and orientation space
| (e.g. sew a hem along a curve), and a complex mapping
| between physical tasks and end result (different stitch
| on seam = different motion).
|
| We'll get there (and if it weren't for low cost labor,
| would already be there for t-shirts). But it's _really_
| hard.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| There are companies working on scaling this kind of thing,
| though:
|
| https://www.indochino.com/suits/fit
|
| That one is a "measure at home" affair, but I've also heard
| tell of ones where there's a pop up at a co-working space
| or whatever, and you go get measured, pick your fabrics,
| and get the shirts in the mail a few weeks later.
|
| Cost-wise, it's definitely more than getting them at a
| department store, but it's not ridiculously more. Think
| like 2-3x rather than 10x.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the
| issue is that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been:
| standardized and quantified.
|
| Yes, it has. The problem is that nontrivial clothing requires
| multidimensional fit which is impractical for mass-produced
| off-the-rack clothing, and marketing of mass-produced clothes
| is therefore driven by all kinds of things, none of which is
| using the well-established standardization and quantification
| of fit, which is used only by people making bespoke clothing or
| altering off-the-rack clothes for specific individuals.
|
| Of course, unless it is paired by on-demand alteration, 3D
| fitting doesn't really address that problem.
|
| But its not meant to (though the for-the-public image may be
| that), its to deal with the problem that taking clothes to
| actual fitting rooms increases handling, damage, theft losses,
| and the resulting policing and remerchandising is a major
| source of labor requirements for shops.
|
| For the Gap, the problem this hopes to solve, or at least
| mitigate, is "retail employees".
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| As technology advances, it becomes easier for us to
| standardize and quantize the fit of clothes in increasing
| dimensions. And so instead of one product having a certain
| cut and then it's just got a few sizes, we could have a
| continuously variable design which could be produced in
| 10,000 sizes. Stores could carry popular sizes but any
| prospective buyer could check if they have their ideal fit
| range in stock in any items, or could order the correct size
| by mail.
|
| Of course the garment industry is still heavily reliant on
| human labor for manufacture and the model I describe would
| really only work if the process is basically fully automated.
| But it would be nice if my clothes didn't rely on
| marginalized labor in Bangladesh so I'd like a fully
| automated source.
|
| Anyway you're not wrong that it's impractical with the
| current way of doing things, but it seems fully automated
| clothing production is advancing, so perhaps in 20 years it
| will be possible.
| na85 wrote:
| >Yes, it has.
|
| It most certainly has not. Even in men's legwear where your
| clothing is more or less fully defined by two measurements
| (waist circumference and inseam length), there are lots of
| variations between brands for garments with the same nominal
| size.
|
| I have 2 pairs of billabong board shorts that are slightly
| too big and fall down if I don't cinch the drawstrings extra
| tight. Size 34 waist.
|
| I have another 2 pairs of o'neill shorts that fit perfectly
| and don't fall down even if I don't lace up the drawstring at
| all. Size 34 waist.
|
| Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have
| such ill-defined terms like "size zero".
| hn_user82179 wrote:
| Agreed, and that's also not taking into account vanity
| sizing, where the differences in sizes is on purpose
| phil_e_delphian wrote:
| I've started selecting for brands that have more
| information than those two measurements. Seat and taper are
| more helpful, for instance.
|
| More casual button-downs are also very frustrating, as
| sleeve length and chest circumference aren't provided
| accurately for S vs M vs L
| noja wrote:
| > Size 34 waist.
|
| If you want an extra shock: measure your waist. It's not 34
| inches!
| gruez wrote:
| >Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can
| have such ill-defined terms like "size zero".
|
| size zero at least makes sense if it's the smallest, and
| they're using zero based indexing. It really gets
| ridiculous when they have size 00.
| ghaff wrote:
| Sizing is pretty quantified. A tailor has specific measurements
| they make. (Presumably women's clothing is the same.) One
| problem is that you end up with a huge number of permutations,
| no one is "average"[0], people have different preferences when
| it comes to the type of fit, etc.
|
| This sort of thing has been being talked about for 20+ years.
| The problems include that you're probably never going to get to
| the equivalent of a tailored suit--even after taking all their
| measurements, tailors often will make some final adjustments.
| On the other hand, most people are fine with their day to day
| polo shirts, T-shirts, and trousers being off the rack without
| paying double/triple or whatever for customization.
|
| [0] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| > _Sizing is pretty quantified._
|
| Sort of, but it's all fake if you don't have the right QC
| strictness at manufacture. People like to joke about "fake
| size numbers" and "S/M/L" and "different style cuts", but
| forget about that and focus on waist and inseam measurements
| for a moment.
|
| Men's pants have been labeled with waist and inseam
| measurements in inches forever, and, differences person to
| person and brand to brand entirely aside, the same brand of
| pants in the same style in the same color with the same size
| label on the same day can have different actual waist
| circumferences by more than half an inch so that one pair
| will fit _you_ and another won't fit _you_ because their
| assembly tolerance is higher than your fit tolerance.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Sizing isn't really quantified at all. Brands use vague terms
| like "Small, Medium, and Large" that aren't even consistent
| within the brand, and depend on the cut and particular style.
| ghaff wrote:
| Mass-produced clothing sizing is certainly inexact. But the
| body measurements for an individual are reasonably well
| specified.
| mint2 wrote:
| What does "body measurements for an individual are
| specified" mean? Like body measurements on the size
| charts are specified? Those don't tell one of the
| clothing will fit, only that there's a possibility it
| will fit. And in reality the ranges they give are far too
| wide.
|
| And one can specify their body measurements all they
| like, but it barely helps selecting a size online or even
| in store.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| >being off the rack without paying double/triple or whatever
| for customization.
|
| I bought a suit a while back - they tailored it (pants and
| jacket) for <$20. This is "really expensive" if it is a $10
| t-shirt, but not that bad if it is an $80 point-down shirt,
| and even reasonable if it is a $200 pant/jacket combo
| ghaff wrote:
| That seems cheap for tailoring in the US. I don't really
| wear suits or even blazers any longer but, when I did, I'd
| either get them custom-made in Asia or extensively tailored
| in the US. Haven't done that for ages though.
|
| I was mostly referring to day-to-day wear that's $10-40 or
| so off the rack.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > I'd either get them custom-made in Asia
|
| I'm selfishly disappointed China's takeover of Hong Kong
| because it gives me very mixed feeling about getting
| suits from there. They do amazing work, but supporting
| them is, in a sense, supporting China's takeover, even if
| the shop had nothing to do with it.
| ezekg wrote:
| This is especially true for Gap. Their sizing is bonkers
| compared to the norm. I stopped shopping there a long time ago
| because it was too much of a hassle to go and try things on in
| person. Instead, I order online from retailers that have
| consistent sizing and that I know fit me well.
| noja wrote:
| Zozo solved this with the Zozosuit:
| https://corp.zozo.com/en/news/20201029-6375/ (that is version 2).
|
| You wear a ridiculous looking figure-hugging suit and scan
| yourself with their app. Then you don't wear the suit again
| (unless you change shape). Version 2 of the suit looks much less
| silly.
|
| Now you can order what you want and it's for your size!
|
| It does works, but... make sure you know exactly what you want.
| e.g. do you want a closer fit? Looser fit?
| gootler wrote:
| Nobody cares. I walk around in my underwear all day thanks to
| China's Covid!
| wombatmobile wrote:
| What problem/s does 3D fitting room solve?
|
| What problem/s does 3D fitting room introduce?
| Youden wrote:
| In theory, it works to bridge the gap between an in-person
| visit to a clothes store and an online shopping experience like
| Amazon.
|
| When you buy clothes online, you can only see images of the
| clothes and see them on other people. You can't really tell how
| they'd look and fit on you.
|
| When you buy clothes in a store, you can try them on but you're
| left with the selection of a physical store (e.g. it might not
| have your size, you might want a different colour).
|
| With a virtual fitting room, you can, at least in theory, get
| the best of both worlds: a large selection of items and the
| ability to see how they fit on you.
|
| After going shopping with my wife recently, I came up with a
| dream for how the experience of clothes shopping would be in
| the future and a virtual fitting room fits into that vision:
|
| - You digitize your body (e.g. by visiting a store with a body
| scanner)
|
| - You browse a catalog, on a computer or phone at home or
| perhaps on some kind of AR mirror in a store (this is where the
| virtual fitting room fits in)
|
| - You have the items you like the most delivered either to your
| home or to the store
|
| - You try them on for a final check
|
| - You keep the ones you like and return the ones you don't
| (either by post if you're at home or just hand them back if
| you're in-store)
|
| Depending on the specifications available to the retailer, the
| virtual fitting could also do analysis of the garment and your
| body to tell you how good a fit it is. The CAD packages
| available for patternmaking have stress analysis which can show
| where the garment is too tight or too loose and that could be
| displayed to the customer based on their own measurements.
|
| The same concept could also be used to eliminate sizes from the
| customer's mind. The store could use the customer's
| measurements and the technical details of the garment to
| automatically supply the best-fitting size.
| mint2 wrote:
| The problem I've seen with all the online fit systems is they
| tell you the closest size even if it's a horrible fit, they
| never tell you the brand's sizes aren't good for you.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| Presumably what is my number one issue with online clothes
| shopping, and why I have and never will do it - sizing and
| perception.
|
| 1) Sizing - ordering multiple sizes so you get the right one is
| not a sustainable or environmentally friendly way of purchasing
| clothes online.
|
| 2) Perception - looking at a good-looking, slim person trying
| on clothes is not representative of most people. I've seen
| plenty of clothes look good on a mannequin look awful on me.
| Wish I could say vice-versa, but the mannequins don't talk
| back.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| > is not a sustainable or environmentally friendly
|
| These products need to be shipped to the U.S., usually by
| boat, where freight trucks haul them to warehouses before
| another set of freight trucks deliver product to storefronts
| which have giant parking lots next to them so customers can
| drive their gas cars to park in them. Let's not talk about
| all the unsold waste.
|
| I'm open to options.
| wombatmobile wrote:
| What does the back end look like?
|
| Is every garment custom made, or selected from inventory?
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| I've no idea. I've never bought clothing online and don't
| trust these services either (yet).
| [deleted]
| mint2 wrote:
| On 2) perception. Not only are the models typically in the
| top 1% of fitness fit with 40" chests and 31" waists and six
| packs, but it's rare they're under 5"11 despite the median
| male height being 5'9".
|
| So all in all the male clothes models usually look like just
| a fraction of a fraction of the population and that fraction
| is all outliers in no way representative of a typical
| shopper.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| Even sizing can be 'odd' sometimes. I can many times grab 2
| different items the only difference supposedly is color. One
| will fit the other will have weird spots that dont. I
| basically have to try everything on before I buy it.
| Otherwise I am just going to have to return it immediately.
| That is currently easier in a store than playing the mail it
| back game.
|
| If I were ordering custom sized cloths then _maybe_ this
| would be useful. Neat for sure. But I am not seeing the
| usefulness because of the wild inconsistencies in most
| cloths.
| dogman144 wrote:
| > What problem/s does 3D fitting room introduce?
|
| Nasty PII leaks
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| No amounts mentioned. Can I assume it was a pittance then?
| yccc wrote:
| If they're an acquisition target this early in their life then
| it must be because of potential, not inability to raise money,
| as being a part of YC would make it straight forward to raise
| capital to continue to identify business opportunities (if they
| were struggling). I'd be very surprised if it was under 20m.
| emptysea wrote:
| Crunchbase says they only raised $125k so even if they were
| acquired for a few million, they likely made out okay.
| the-dude wrote:
| That seems to be the YC batch amount.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > by showing them how an item will actually look on their body
|
| This is only half of the equation, and I find a lot of people are
| ignoring - mainly because it seems intractable.
|
| As important as how an item of clothing looks on my body, is how
| it feels on my body. Does it constrict when I move. Am I able to
| sit, stand, and walk comfortably in it?
|
| Some times a piece of clothing can look perfect, if I am standing
| rigidly like a mannequin, but it is highly uncomfortable with any
| movement.
| yeldarb wrote:
| Congrats guys!
|
| For those who don't know, Drapr was a YC co from last summer's
| batch: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/drapr
| neverywhere wrote:
| This seems to be an acquihire? IF you wanted to get a high
| valuation you would have stuck it out by yourself longer I would
| think?
| tootie wrote:
| I worked at a big retail company a few years that was desperate
| to make investments in tech. Probably didn't help that HQ was
| in Silicon Valley. They ended acquiring a 3D company for a
| similar purpose to Gap only the company was actually a total
| mismatch for what they intended. They produced 3D models, but
| not actual usable software. The tech leadership internally
| advised against the acquisition but the CEO did it anyway. Then
| we had to pivot them to basically build what we wanted from
| scratch with no clear market need. AFAIK, it's been languishing
| for a few years.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Gap, Inc. also has a collection of dying brands and is a little
| desperate. Gap and Banana Republic are stale. I guess Old Navy
| is doing OK. Google trends says Athleta seems to do OK, but
| it's a second-rate Lululemon.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-30 23:02 UTC)