I don't understand why the article is written as if there was a conclusion. It seems like there are more questions than answers at this point. Maybe the produc

I don't understand why the article is written as if there was a conclusion. It seems like there are more questions than answers at this point. Maybe the products were just too expensive and those "harbingers" are all just rich people? Or maybe those people were early adopters who saw potential value in the product, but the product was just too shitty for mainstream consumers? So if your product fails, just blame the people with low standards who initially bought it!