Talk:1497: New Products

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 10:28, 12 March 2015 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

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. 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. — 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift. 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. 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in a chart of examples of each category (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Sean Malstrom talked about this. In general, Super Mario Bros, the Legend of Zelda, and Metroid, while classic, are actually nothing new... just having a high level of crasftmanship. Besides, people want familiar experiences. In a way, that makes sense. Meanwhile, hype tends to inflate expectations. The only game that ever fulfilled hype was Super Mario Bros. 3... still a classic. Then again, hype is a mere tactic used in getting people to buy poor games; great games do not need hype. Greyson (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading those 'quotes', I'm minded of Bill Gates's statement on exactly how much memory we wouldn't need more than, the head of IBM far earlier predicting the need for perhaps five(? look it up) computers in the whole world, the century-old prediction that the number of cars in the world wouldn't exceed the (small number of) chauffeurs who could be trained, etc. Plus things like Microsoft's failed earlier attempts at Windows tablets (and OSes) that preceded the latest craze by a decade and then died, only for the recent mania (which might again be dying, but at least has a foothold). But is it worthwhile actually putting in loads of links to these kinds of things, to illustrate each issue? Probably not... 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the alt text refers to the 6th row of the table as well, the speaker in the quote is nervous about handing his medical information over to KimDotCom's company, which means within 5 years he will willingly do it. The 2nd and 3rd rows made me think of the Pebble Watch, which was launched on kickstarter (pre-ordered), but I don't believe it was widely commercially successful. The concept of the Pebble is being used in the Apple Watch, but with a higher quality screen, greater focus on design elements, and a much much higher price-tag. 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No it cannot fit there. Because he has signed up and thus h does not say never in my life... I have changed back and added this explantion --Kynde (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody else find this explanation borderline offensive? You can describe differences groups without being derogatory.

Something between the current text and the comment labeled 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) should do it. -- 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Title text does seem to refer to 4th category. Please discuss before deleting. Djbrasier (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I disagree. I has already once removed a reference to the fourth category, and thus I did it again when you put it in again and also wrote alot of text where all of it basically was written below the Dotcom explanation. Try and read your versions, and see that most of what you wrote apart from the fourth category is more or less double. If the guy has signed up he have no problems with this company. Also it is mentioned that the fourth category is not a company he is afraid off, but just someone they do not like. At least we should try to avoid writing the same twice! I could say the same to you by the way: Please discuss before adding something others have already twice removed. --Kynde (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I had not seen your latest revision. I like the wording. I have kept the category four reference in my newest change, where I have merged the two paragraphs, keeping by far most of your text, but moving most of it below the Kim Dotkom paragraph, as it is importnat to explain him before going on with the explanation why he is so dangerous! I hope you can live with this version? --Kynde (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the consensus of engineers upon seeing the iPhone was that it was boring. I remember thinking it would make a killing. 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Compare the iPhone 1 to the Nokia E90 (also from 2007); 3G, aGPS, clipboard, optionally larger screen with higher resolution, replaceable battery. So technically inferior for its time (except the capacitive touch). The correction of the shortcomings have been sold as the next generation iPhones in the following years and many engineers knew of succsssions of better alternatives during that times. Sebastian -- 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

added Ubuntu Edge to ""I've already pre-ordered one" which I actually did :) sirKitKat (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)