4 ms·

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You lead with a statement that sounds like disappointment, but then build up to the engineering complexity

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You lead with a statement that sounds like disappointment, but then build up to the engineering complexity involved. What are you trying to say? That this doesn't add up to a great product? How long have you been using them for?

birdyrooster 6y ago
I think the parent commenter is saying that in order to make a superior product these days, you need an extraordinary amount of investment for R&D which can only be made up by selling it at volumes that someone like Apple can achieve. I think their comment is about bang for your engineering buck.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kev009 6y ago
  This seems like a win for everybody. In the past a lot of people spent money on luxury goods which translated to over-paying brand name and status symbol. I would consider products like Beats headphones to be in that category; they were technically inferior to many other headphones but cost as much or more than professional headphones. It is interesting to see Apple engineering maintain broad appeal in product design while adding quite a bit of functionality.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    It does however mean that it's winner-take-all on the vendor end. That's troubling for the future.
    - lukifer 6y ago
      I think Metcalfe's Law [0] for networked services is a bigger driver for winner-take-all, than needing deep pockets to compete in a mature product category. For consumer products, a small number of large players can own entire market segments between them, but still compete with one another, as we see in other capital-intensive industries like cars or smartphones. (And it's fair to see that as its own problem; but it generally devolves to the question "if markets are universally the most efficient form of exchange, why are firms a thing?" [1].) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Not necessarily, especially in areas like sound where it is essentially ‘solved’ Why should humanity put so many resources towards improvements that no mere mortal can notice? It’s probably better to put the talent on other problems...
- Alex3917 6y ago
  > I think the parent commenter is saying that in order to make a superior product these days, you need an extraordinary amount of investment for R&D which can only be made up by selling it at volumes that someone like Apple can achieve. True if you're selling average products for average people. Not true if you have a niche.
mcdevilkiller 6y ago
I think GP means that in the near future, significant tech advancements will only be able to be done by the tech giants.
0x1F8B 6y ago
I don't know how you read a negative or judgmental tone into that comment... GP is basically saying that consumer technology has advanced to the point where you need large teams doing complicated or deeply technical (and somewhat incremental) improvements on existing technologies. It's not a judgment on the product. It's just a lament that the days of individuals or small companies innovating in the consumer electronics space are (long?) over.
- nappy-doo 6y ago
  No. Apple needs large teams doing complicated or deeply technical things. That's their market. They're in consumer electronics. If it takes 50 people to ship 100M units, then it takes 50 people.
  - 0x1F8B 6y ago
    No what? What are you talking about?
- gmu3 6y ago
  The first sentence only experiencing diminishing returns can be read negative. Also everything is easier/cheaper/faster than ever for individuals and small companies to enter the hardware space.
  - 0x1F8B 6y ago
    I suspect the best path for success that individuals or small companies can take right now is to focus on one piece of the larger product and aim for acquisition or licensing, sort of like the pharmaceutical space.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  I didn't see it as a judgement, just didn't understand the point. I guess you have provided a little more clarity. How sad is it to generalize the idea that disruption can no longer occur. That is one of the saddest things I've read all day. There are numerous cases where companies 'advance technology' into a product to the point where someone comes along with something simpler to undercut the existing player. Apple isn't a good example of this because it's very hard to disrupt their products. They have extremely focus on the end user and simplicity.
auraham 6y ago
I understood the comment like you. After reading the thread, I got the idea of the OP.
mempko 6y ago
I think he means headphone tech is already complex and they needed to raise complexity a lot, lets say 10x to get something that maybe has 1.2x better sound. At least that's what I understood. In other words, you get diminishing returns.

birdyrooster 6y ago

I think the parent commenter is saying that in order to make a superior product these days, you need an extraordinary amount of investment for R&D which can only be made up by selling it at volumes that someone like Apple can achieve. I think their comment is about bang for your engineering buck.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kev009 6y ago
This seems like a win for everybody. In the past a lot of people spent money on luxury goods which translated to over-paying brand name and status symbol. I would consider products like Beats headphones to be in that category; they were technically inferior to many other headphones but cost as much or more than professional headphones. It is interesting to see Apple engineering maintain broad appeal in product design while adding quite a bit of functionality.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  It does however mean that it's winner-take-all on the vendor end. That's troubling for the future.
  - lukifer 6y ago
    I think Metcalfe's Law [0] for networked services is a bigger driver for winner-take-all, than needing deep pockets to compete in a mature product category. For consumer products, a small number of large players can own entire market segments between them, but still compete with one another, as we see in other capital-intensive industries like cars or smartphones. (And it's fair to see that as its own problem; but it generally devolves to the question "if markets are universally the most efficient form of exchange, why are firms a thing?" [1].) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Not necessarily, especially in areas like sound where it is essentially ‘solved’ Why should humanity put so many resources towards improvements that no mere mortal can notice? It’s probably better to put the talent on other problems...
Alex3917 6y ago
> I think the parent commenter is saying that in order to make a superior product these days, you need an extraordinary amount of investment for R&D which can only be made up by selling it at volumes that someone like Apple can achieve. True if you're selling average products for average people. Not true if you have a niche.

mcdevilkiller 6y ago

I think GP means that in the near future, significant tech advancements will only be able to be done by the tech giants.

0x1F8B 6y ago

I don't know how you read a negative or judgmental tone into that comment... GP is basically saying that consumer technology has advanced to the point where you need large teams doing complicated or deeply technical (and somewhat incremental) improvements on existing technologies. It's not a judgment on the product. It's just a lament that the days of individuals or small companies innovating in the consumer electronics space are (long?) over.

nappy-doo 6y ago
No. Apple needs large teams doing complicated or deeply technical things. That's their market. They're in consumer electronics. If it takes 50 people to ship 100M units, then it takes 50 people.
- 0x1F8B 6y ago
  No what? What are you talking about?
gmu3 6y ago
The first sentence only experiencing diminishing returns can be read negative. Also everything is easier/cheaper/faster than ever for individuals and small companies to enter the hardware space.
- 0x1F8B 6y ago
  I suspect the best path for success that individuals or small companies can take right now is to focus on one piece of the larger product and aim for acquisition or licensing, sort of like the pharmaceutical space.
enos_feedler 6y ago
I didn't see it as a judgement, just didn't understand the point. I guess you have provided a little more clarity. How sad is it to generalize the idea that disruption can no longer occur. That is one of the saddest things I've read all day. There are numerous cases where companies 'advance technology' into a product to the point where someone comes along with something simpler to undercut the existing player. Apple isn't a good example of this because it's very hard to disrupt their products. They have extremely focus on the end user and simplicity.

auraham 6y ago

I understood the comment like you. After reading the thread, I got the idea of the OP.

mempko 6y ago

I think he means headphone tech is already complex and they needed to raise complexity a lot, lets say 10x to get something that maybe has 1.2x better sound. At least that's what I understood. In other words, you get diminishing returns.