![]() ![]() If they weren’t so obviously harmful to sales, we’d still have them around, because it’d be impossible to differentiate between negative vs positive impact, simply because nothing else was available to even buy (in that trust/price/quality/brand range) Sure the issue is that due to supplier convergence, the only option in a modern tv. It was, and probably still is, a net loss >If 3D TVs were able to garner any premium over regular TVs, the electronics companies would have continued selling them. Just because you don't like it, or for that matter the entire of HN don't like it, doesn't mean there is no demand for it. Why? because there is insane demand for AAA titles, and for that matter for massive multiplayer games - LoL, Fortnite, PUBG etc. Indie sales are a minuscule fraction of the game industry market. Heavy js and web is a completely different story because you aren't the customer for website with heavy js, and the advertisers, who are the customers of these websites, have a great demand for more javascript.ĪAA titles are dominating the market. Phablets are so much in demand, that apple had practically no choice but to build one. The majority of iPhone users probably use bluetooth headphones. Smart TVs are a convenience that is actually in demand, mostly because it does not add a markup to price - why buy a non smart TV when you can buy a smart one at the same price. It was, and probably still is, a net loss. If 3D TVs were able to garner any premium over regular TVs, the electronics companies would have continued selling them. Even in it's "height" there were far more regular TVs sold then 3D ones. If I recall correctly 3D TVs has always had minuscule sales volume compared to regular TVs. (They didn’t try to force a trend, they just all thought it was the trend, due to whatever terrible research they all do hell, I’d bet there was one or two marketing firms that were the root cause of most of these messes) ![]() This type of event, where the producers collectively decide what the consumers want, and only produce it, and miss the mark by a mile, definetely exist (these are just things I’m irrated by recently), though I assume incompetence and babdwaggoning over any kind of real thinking going into this. In games, complex 3D graphics (this is very slowly changing, as indie devs begin to realize games existed between 19) Mercedes, priuses, bmws, etc are all horrendous. Presumably tesla’s is decent (never tried), but otherwise the only interface I’ve encountered yet that met the minimum requirement of a sensible response time (let alone everything else) is a luxury jeep. In cars theres the same issue with GPS systems: even luxury cars have awful interfaces. Today, every tv is a Smart TV, and yet again, I haven’t found anyone who thought they weren’t awful Netflix's model of creating content to justify their subscription is going to stop working eventually, content is a "long tail" type problem and their strategy of self-funding content is going to be increasingly unworkable within a few years.įor about 5 years, any tv you found in an electronic store was 3D, and I have yet to find a single person who claims to like them. Cable TV to date has been much more successful in evolving and preventing disruption in those ancillary lines (pay per view etc) and has maintained a subscription model.Īs an aside - everyone thinks Netflix is so wise with their current subscription strategy, I am a paying streaming customer myself, but the number of times of late that Netflix does not have the movie I actually want to watch, but Amazon's pay-per-view model does, makes me realize there are limits to the subscription approach as well. Subscriptions alone obviously were not able to save newspapers from crushing deflation in their ancillary revenue models of classified ads, which they lost to craigslist and others. Newspapers, telephones and cable TV have long been subscription based. (But you can still get a lot done with non subscription versions of Word 2003 etc). I see the current trend in subscriptions as largely a revolution in pure technology service businesses, where subscriptions are a rational way to pay for them (dropbox, github), along with software producers and their customers maturing to the point that they can mutually acknowledge the need for up-to-date and evolving core capabilities, such as Windows and Office, which can reasonably be seen to require recurring support which has value. I think this piece and the pitch it references are borderline abuse of the history and context of subscription businesses. I am also heartened that the #1 and #2 comments on here retain the voice of sanity. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |