2 ms·
Even if we accepted the first imperative for a company, there is no imperative for people to keep buying. Much less so when people have choices that are cheaper
by rglullis 6y ago
Even if we accepted the first imperative for a company, there is no imperative for people to keep buying. Much less so when people have choices that are cheaper and more sustainable at the same time.
So aside from irrational consumerism, I am also in the camp of people that don't understand why one would buy this. It is not portable like earpads, it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.
- coldtea 6y ago>Even if we accepted the first imperative for a company, there is no imperative for people to keep buying. News flash: people don't care about the environment either. If they did they wouldn't be satisfied with token gestures, but do radical changes to the society/workplace/lifestyle (some of that kind, like reduced flights, WFH, etc., came as a result of COVID, but would have been met with huge uproar by the general population on environmental grounds). >it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source. Technically, not really, as it depends on embedded microphones, movement sensors, and such. It's not just the "3d sound" experience of yore, which was solely processed and encoded as a regular audio stream.
- rglullis 6y agoWe share the cynicism. I completely agree that there is a huge difference between what people say they want and what they actually end up choosing. That doesn't make it any more defensible, though. I still reserve judgement for the people that will buy it and the companies that produce this.