Difference between revisions of "Talk:1497: New Products"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
* It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.125|173.245.53.125]] 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 
* It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.125|173.245.53.125]] 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 
* I took the point of the first category to be that if smart people (programmers and engineers being assumed to be smart) can't understand why anyone would want some stupid useless piece of crap, that it will be a huge success because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one (ref: MS Windows), and the point of the second category to be that if it excites smart people, it'll fail in the marketplace because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 
* I took the point of the first category to be that if smart people (programmers and engineers being assumed to be smart) can't understand why anyone would want some stupid useless piece of crap, that it will be a huge success because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one (ref: MS Windows), and the point of the second category to be that if it excites smart people, it'll fail in the marketplace because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 +
* I would be interested in a chart of examples of each category

Revision as of 13:11, 11 March 2015

Seems to me that the humor on the first two is based on engineers and programmers not understanding the general public's needs and wants. Also based on how engineers may find products "exciting" based on how novel the product's functionality is, not based on how useful that functionality is. 108.162.215.150 07:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)MW

  • It seems to me to be a bash on various makes, remakes, re-remakes, /(re-){2,}remakes/ and sequels of sequels that become very successful. —141.101.106.95 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift.173.245.53.125 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I took the point of the first category to be that if smart people (programmers and engineers being assumed to be smart) can't understand why anyone would want some stupid useless piece of crap, that it will be a huge success because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one (ref: MS Windows), and the point of the second category to be that if it excites smart people, it'll fail in the marketplace because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one. 199.27.133.27 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be interested in a chart of examples of each category