7 ms·

Sure they do. 3D TVs and bent TVs are two glaring examples of something people never wanted. The only way companies could uphold that view was by ensuring that

by tjoff 8y ago

Sure they do. 3D TVs and bent TVs are two glaring examples of something people never wanted. The only way companies could uphold that view was by ensuring that no manufacturer had sensible alternatives - effectively forcing people that wanted a TV to buy it. And then pretending that the sales were proof that people wanted it. It is the exact same with the majority of subscription services. For a company I get that it is easier. But easier for an individual? I walk twice around the earth before even considering a subscription service. It cannot be simpler than pay once and you are done for life. The reason as to why so few companies offer both is because it then becomes apparent how bad the subscription value is.

ghaff 8y ago
>It cannot be simpler than pay once and you are done for life. Although that's rarely the case. At some point, your OS upgrade--which you probably have to do for security reasons--breaks your five year old program. Or the program doesn't handle some new format or peripheral, etc. I don't really disagree with your basic point. I dislike money leaks. For online services of various types, I mostly have no choice but I at least want to minimize them with on-prem software--especially for things I only use every now and then.
saiya-jin 8y ago
Bent TV probably no since they are mostly viewed with other people, but ultra wide bent monitors are super nice, especially for gaming. I go this way instead of VR which seems to take time to 'get there' (also HW requirements are easier to pay for).
- corndoge 8y ago
  VR is already here and better than you might expect
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Is there something I missed? I wouldn't call Vive "here".
    - corndoge 8y ago
      I think Vive is pretty good and Rift is even better (I own both). What are your gripes with it?
      - fossuser 8y ago
        Is the Rift better now? I had them both before the Rift had its non-xbox controllers. The Rift let in light through the nose, had no room scale (needed to be in a chair), and just generally seemed like a worse experience. Did things change or are there other reasons you like it? Are the controllers just that much better?
        giobox 8y ago
        Room scale support came to the Rift via addition of a third camera to your setup. It’s not quite as good as the Vive’s tracking but the difference is pretty small now, small enough that it largely doesn’t matter. The tracked hand controllers the Rift now has are arguably a little better than the more basic “baton” style controllers on the Vive, although I believe HTC do have a “Knuckle” controller on the way that adds more advanced hand tracking. The Rift is also significantly lighter and less sweaty on the head, its built in headphones are good enough you can avoid the additional weight of decent headphones, something the Vive pretty much requires. I do strongly think both systems are _way_ too early for anyone other than insane early adopter types. Given this, I think the Rift makes most sense for no other reason than it’s the cheapest. Both of them will make many people sick even after relatively short play sessions. Neither of them are “good” in my opinion, merely the best it seems the market has managed so far.
        83457 8y ago
        Certainly. The touch controllers and room scale makes it completely different.
    - softawre 8y ago
      Odyssey+ is on sale for 300$ and is a darn good headset. It's WAY better than most people imagine, even if it isn't "there" enough to be mainstream, yet.
  - giobox 8y ago
    I’d strongly argue the opposite. Even Palmer Lucky himself is finally starting to swear off the VR coolaid a little. “A lot of people insist on price, but if the VR available today were as good as The Matrix, price wouldn’t be the issue. It’s going to be a combination of better software and better hardware. Right now free isn’t cheap enough for most people.” I still regard the Rift/Vive as the poorest technology investments I’ve ever made, but if others want to spend thousands of dollars on low res, low frame rate (no, 90-120 FPS is not good enough to adequately trick the human mind) motion sickness generators, have at it. The install base is, and will remain, far too small to support serious investment in AAA software/games for many years yet I suspect. People love to argue the minute practical differences between the Rift and the Vive, but I’d argue who cares about either when there is so little software worth anyone’s time available. > https://www.wired.com/story/wired25-peter-thiel-palmer-luckey-virtual-reality-defense-tech/ https://www.wired.com/story/wired25-peter-thiel-palmer-lucke...
Illniyar 8y ago
err... are you implying that there are no alternatives in the market to 3D TVs and bent TVs? As far as I know 3D TVs have basically gone out of market[1] because no one bought them. It is actually the exact opposite of what you suggested - they could not start a trend, even thought they tried to force it on people, because there was no demand for it. [1]-https://www.cnet.com/news/shambling-corpse-of-3d-tv-finally-falls-down-dead/ https://www.cnet.com/news/shambling-corpse-of-3d-tv-finally-...
- alehul 8y ago
  Seconding this. The markets aren't spectacularly and miraculously efficient, but they're efficient enough that products without demand will not last, with the exception of industry-wide collusion to remove the consumer-preferred option from the market. Game theory says the existence of a wanted-but-not-provided product probably won't last, however. And regardless of continuous cooperation of the participating suppliers, there can always be a new entrant. Anecdotal on the TV point, but I recently purchased a new TV... no bend, no 3D (didn't even see that as an option), no hassle. :)
- tjoff 8y ago
  No? I'm saying that there were no alternatives during the hype. They didn't try to start a trend. They tried to make something up to warrant a new purchase.
- setr 8y ago
  For 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. Today, every tv is a Smart TV, and yet again, I haven’t found anyone who thought they weren’t awful In cars theres the same issue with GPS systems: even luxury cars have awful interfaces. 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. Mercedes, priuses, bmws, etc are all horrendous. In phones, the aux ports and phablets On the web, heavy js In games, complex 3D graphics (this is very slowly changing, as indie devs begin to realize games existed between 1980 and 2000) 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. (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)
wesd 8y ago
>I walk twice around the earth before even considering a subscription service. I can't imagine going back not having music subscription service. I don't have to make a decision which album to buy anymore and I don't have to worry about my kids pirating music.
- tjoff 8y ago
  That I agree. I've payed for spotify for nine years. But that's reasonable because it is streaming the music. As is netflix et al. Though I have yet to see a media subscription service with decent software. It would be much better if they could provide a decent API that people could integrate it. But that doesn't fit well with the lock-in, and lock-in is apparently the only thing worth doing.
- asdff 8y ago
  That's because the music subscription service was designed from the ground up to be exactly unlike the previous music business model; in fact the spotify model boils down to legal napster. The problem is when something really has no reason to not be a one time purchase, like companies on instagram charging me $15 a month to send me three new pairs of socks twice a quarter, or maybe they mail me a wooden box once a month with some woodsy smelling beard oil, a leather flask, and a small axe. Software is moving this way too; but I'm still in the camp that would shell out $25 for a program as is that would still work on my machine decades later even if the company folds or puts out another version, than pay $2 a month for something that might not work at all or fundamentally change its functionality in a year.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    I've actually moved to preferring subscription software for things like 1Password (which moved from purchase to subscription). Software is a moving target where everything else is changing around it - OS, hardware, web infrastructure, etc. and having devs continuing development on a tool I'm using is useful. The subscription model in this case accurately reflects the reality and is better than randomly having to pay $45 on occasion to upgrade to a version that still works. I'd also argue that Spotify is better than legal Napster with its streaming and music playlist curation. Spotify may be the best software application I use on a regular basis.
Nition 8y ago
Agreed, and I'd add high-end smartphones with <5" screens, and non-"smart" TVs with decent picture quality as things that people still want but are forced into alternatives.
- softawre 8y ago
  <5"? How small do you want? For me the 5" screen of the regular Pixel (2) is perfect.
  - Nition 8y ago
    Personally I like the size of the iPhone SE, which has a 4" screen. I've talked to people and seen a lot of discussion on it so I know I'm not the only one. The screen could be a bit larger if there was less bezel though: An iPhone SE size phone in the iPhone X style could have a 5" screen without getting any larger. That would be perfect.
  - steelframe 8y ago
    The Sony Xperia Z5 Compact got the screen size just about perfect for me at 4.6". If someone could build a phone with a Pixel 2 camera, a Z5C screen, the thickness of a V35 ThinQ, compatibility with Project Fi, and an audio jack, that would be my sweet spot.
    - Nition 8y ago
      Unfortunately the new Xperia XZ2 Compact is almost the same size as the original Xperia X, with the way phones keep getting larger.
manigandham 8y ago
Those companies that sell things people don't want will go out of business. Good luck only selling 3D TVs when the next company will just sell normal TVs for less and actually make money.

by tjoff 8y ago

ghaff 8y ago

>It cannot be simpler than pay once and you are done for life. Although that's rarely the case. At some point, your OS upgrade--which you probably have to do for security reasons--breaks your five year old program. Or the program doesn't handle some new format or peripheral, etc. I don't really disagree with your basic point. I dislike money leaks. For online services of various types, I mostly have no choice but I at least want to minimize them with on-prem software--especially for things I only use every now and then.

saiya-jin 8y ago

Bent TV probably no since they are mostly viewed with other people, but ultra wide bent monitors are super nice, especially for gaming. I go this way instead of VR which seems to take time to 'get there' (also HW requirements are easier to pay for).

corndoge 8y ago
VR is already here and better than you might expect
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Is there something I missed? I wouldn't call Vive "here".
  - corndoge 8y ago
    I think Vive is pretty good and Rift is even better (I own both). What are your gripes with it?
    - fossuser 8y ago
      Is the Rift better now? I had them both before the Rift had its non-xbox controllers. The Rift let in light through the nose, had no room scale (needed to be in a chair), and just generally seemed like a worse experience. Did things change or are there other reasons you like it? Are the controllers just that much better?
      - giobox 8y ago
        Room scale support came to the Rift via addition of a third camera to your setup. It’s not quite as good as the Vive’s tracking but the difference is pretty small now, small enough that it largely doesn’t matter. The tracked hand controllers the Rift now has are arguably a little better than the more basic “baton” style controllers on the Vive, although I believe HTC do have a “Knuckle” controller on the way that adds more advanced hand tracking. The Rift is also significantly lighter and less sweaty on the head, its built in headphones are good enough you can avoid the additional weight of decent headphones, something the Vive pretty much requires. I do strongly think both systems are _way_ too early for anyone other than insane early adopter types. Given this, I think the Rift makes most sense for no other reason than it’s the cheapest. Both of them will make many people sick even after relatively short play sessions. Neither of them are “good” in my opinion, merely the best it seems the market has managed so far.
      - 83457 8y ago
        Certainly. The touch controllers and room scale makes it completely different.
  - softawre 8y ago
    Odyssey+ is on sale for 300$ and is a darn good headset. It's WAY better than most people imagine, even if it isn't "there" enough to be mainstream, yet.
- giobox 8y ago
  I’d strongly argue the opposite. Even Palmer Lucky himself is finally starting to swear off the VR coolaid a little. “A lot of people insist on price, but if the VR available today were as good as The Matrix, price wouldn’t be the issue. It’s going to be a combination of better software and better hardware. Right now free isn’t cheap enough for most people.” I still regard the Rift/Vive as the poorest technology investments I’ve ever made, but if others want to spend thousands of dollars on low res, low frame rate (no, 90-120 FPS is not good enough to adequately trick the human mind) motion sickness generators, have at it. The install base is, and will remain, far too small to support serious investment in AAA software/games for many years yet I suspect. People love to argue the minute practical differences between the Rift and the Vive, but I’d argue who cares about either when there is so little software worth anyone’s time available. > https://www.wired.com/story/wired25-peter-thiel-palmer-luckey-virtual-reality-defense-tech/ https://www.wired.com/story/wired25-peter-thiel-palmer-lucke...

Illniyar 8y ago

err... are you implying that there are no alternatives in the market to 3D TVs and bent TVs? As far as I know 3D TVs have basically gone out of market[1] because no one bought them. It is actually the exact opposite of what you suggested - they could not start a trend, even thought they tried to force it on people, because there was no demand for it. [1]-https://www.cnet.com/news/shambling-corpse-of-3d-tv-finally-falls-down-dead/ https://www.cnet.com/news/shambling-corpse-of-3d-tv-finally-...

alehul 8y ago
Seconding this. The markets aren't spectacularly and miraculously efficient, but they're efficient enough that products without demand will not last, with the exception of industry-wide collusion to remove the consumer-preferred option from the market. Game theory says the existence of a wanted-but-not-provided product probably won't last, however. And regardless of continuous cooperation of the participating suppliers, there can always be a new entrant. Anecdotal on the TV point, but I recently purchased a new TV... no bend, no 3D (didn't even see that as an option), no hassle. :)
tjoff 8y ago
No? I'm saying that there were no alternatives during the hype. They didn't try to start a trend. They tried to make something up to warrant a new purchase.
setr 8y ago
For 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. Today, every tv is a Smart TV, and yet again, I haven’t found anyone who thought they weren’t awful In cars theres the same issue with GPS systems: even luxury cars have awful interfaces. 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. Mercedes, priuses, bmws, etc are all horrendous. In phones, the aux ports and phablets On the web, heavy js In games, complex 3D graphics (this is very slowly changing, as indie devs begin to realize games existed between 1980 and 2000) 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. (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)

wesd 8y ago

>I walk twice around the earth before even considering a subscription service. I can't imagine going back not having music subscription service. I don't have to make a decision which album to buy anymore and I don't have to worry about my kids pirating music.

tjoff 8y ago
That I agree. I've payed for spotify for nine years. But that's reasonable because it is streaming the music. As is netflix et al. Though I have yet to see a media subscription service with decent software. It would be much better if they could provide a decent API that people could integrate it. But that doesn't fit well with the lock-in, and lock-in is apparently the only thing worth doing.
asdff 8y ago
That's because the music subscription service was designed from the ground up to be exactly unlike the previous music business model; in fact the spotify model boils down to legal napster. The problem is when something really has no reason to not be a one time purchase, like companies on instagram charging me $15 a month to send me three new pairs of socks twice a quarter, or maybe they mail me a wooden box once a month with some woodsy smelling beard oil, a leather flask, and a small axe. Software is moving this way too; but I'm still in the camp that would shell out $25 for a program as is that would still work on my machine decades later even if the company folds or puts out another version, than pay $2 a month for something that might not work at all or fundamentally change its functionality in a year.
- fossuser 8y ago
  I've actually moved to preferring subscription software for things like 1Password (which moved from purchase to subscription). Software is a moving target where everything else is changing around it - OS, hardware, web infrastructure, etc. and having devs continuing development on a tool I'm using is useful. The subscription model in this case accurately reflects the reality and is better than randomly having to pay $45 on occasion to upgrade to a version that still works. I'd also argue that Spotify is better than legal Napster with its streaming and music playlist curation. Spotify may be the best software application I use on a regular basis.

Nition 8y ago

Agreed, and I'd add high-end smartphones with <5" screens, and non-"smart" TVs with decent picture quality as things that people still want but are forced into alternatives.

softawre 8y ago
<5"? How small do you want? For me the 5" screen of the regular Pixel (2) is perfect.
- Nition 8y ago
  Personally I like the size of the iPhone SE, which has a 4" screen. I've talked to people and seen a lot of discussion on it so I know I'm not the only one. The screen could be a bit larger if there was less bezel though: An iPhone SE size phone in the iPhone X style could have a 5" screen without getting any larger. That would be perfect.
- steelframe 8y ago
  The Sony Xperia Z5 Compact got the screen size just about perfect for me at 4.6". If someone could build a phone with a Pixel 2 camera, a Z5C screen, the thickness of a V35 ThinQ, compatibility with Project Fi, and an audio jack, that would be my sweet spot.
  - Nition 8y ago
    Unfortunately the new Xperia XZ2 Compact is almost the same size as the original Xperia X, with the way phones keep getting larger.

manigandham 8y ago

Those companies that sell things people don't want will go out of business. Good luck only selling 3D TVs when the next company will just sell normal TVs for less and actually make money.