Dragon1-1 Posted January 29 Posted January 29 14 hours ago, Aapje said: Wait, what do you say, billions in losses? Nevermind then. Two problems here, which make it a bad example: 1). Quest is still a big purchase, too big for the average person. 2). Horizon Worlds sucks and nobody actually wants to use it. There's plenty of money in making the apps, as well as running a store, as Sony demonstrates with their consoles and games. The difference is, the games Sony makes are fun. Zuck's misbegotten metaverse is far from that. This sales tactic is not a guarantee of success, it's a tactic that has worked in the past. Do it with a cheaper headset (even technologically inferior to the cutting edge Quests), and make an app that people would actually want to use (this is the key part), you might get somewhere. 1
Aapje Posted January 29 Posted January 29 7 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: 2). Horizon Worlds sucks and nobody actually wants to use it. Yes, and that supports my point. You act as if it is trivial to just create good software and makes lots of money, while the actual reality is that it is an art and just because a company can make hardware, doesn't mean that they can make great software. 7 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: There's plenty of money in making the apps, as well as running a store, as Sony demonstrates with their consoles and games. How much money did Sony lose on Concord again? And look at Pico to see what happens if your hardware is not sold enough. They have a store with very few games. Again, your entire narrative is based on assumptions, and wishful thinking, with zero recognition that your assumptions can be wrong and that you keep ignoring all the counterevidence.
Dragon1-1 Posted January 30 Posted January 30 1 hour ago, Aapje said: Again, your entire narrative is based on assumptions, and wishful thinking, with zero recognition that your assumptions can be wrong and that you keep ignoring all the counterevidence. No, you are insisting my assumptions can't be right, only because a few other products had tried and failed, ignoring those that tried and succeeded. That's exactly how you end up not making anything new or innovative. I never said my approach is guaranteed to work, and your "counterevidence" doesn't counter my evidence that it sometimes does. You seem to be trying to prove that a product that doesn't match or exceed the capabilities of what's already on the market can't possibly make a profit. How about that: a computer with a low res screen, wimpy CPU, a cheap knockoff OS, and the biggest innovation is its modular architecture, which doesn't really seem bring much to the table. There's no way that could sell, right? And yet, you're probably not typing this on an Amiga. My point being, a new technology that does not compare well to the cutting edge can still succeed, if the people making it have the right business idea. You're obviously unlikely to ever have such an idea, but that doesn't mean nobody else can. 1
Aapje Posted January 30 Posted January 30 You were the one who claimed that your suggestions would work, without ever putting in those caveats that you are now suddenly introducing. If you had added those in the first place, I would not have objected how I did and it is unfair for you to act as if you argued those things in the first place.
Recommended Posts