4 ms·

I think the point of the comparison is basically: here's a bunch of console you probably never heard about. They flopped. That's exactly my point. "Here's a bu

I think the point of the comparison is basically: here's a bunch of console you probably never heard about. They flopped. That's exactly my point. "Here's a bunch of [insert failed consumer electronic] you've never heard of without regard for disparate product life cycles or market environments". The data points are interchangeable so long as they follow the guideline of "consumer electronic that existed at some point in time and didn't sell well"

masklinn 15y ago
> That's exactly my point. No, you said adding the iPad sales to the graph would make it meaningful. What meaning would it mean to the graph? It might change the meaning of the graph to "the iPad sells well, other tablets don't" but then the consoles included are meaningless. The point of the graph is "these tablets don't sell for shit, here, compare to sales of stuff which didn't sell for shit either".
- vectorpush 15y ago
  I was being sarcastic when I said that adding iPad sales to the graph would make it meaningful since a comparison of 2 to 30 doesn't require a graph for digestion. The point of the graph is "these tablets don't sell for shit, here, compare to sales of stuff which didn't sell for shit either" Yes, a point that remains lost on me considering you could stack this year's tablets up against a myriad of 20 year old devices and make an equally meaningless comparison.
tptacek 15y ago
They aren't random consumer electronic devices; they're consoles, the market for which has similarities to the "tablet" market in that they're ancillary devices for consumers with winner-take-most developer ecosystems.
- vectorpush 15y ago
  I don't see the meaning in a graph comparing tablets from 8 months ago to game consoles from 20 years ago.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Then you don't see the value in comparing comparable markets from the history of computing to a modern market; you don't think history in any way resembles itself. Which is fine, but I think that perspective is a bit of an outlier.
    - vectorpush 15y ago
      you don't think history in any way resembles itself. I wouldn't go that far, but I think in this case, the markets are so radically different that it's difficult to take a lot of meaning from the comparisons. So far, the non-IOS tablets are selling better than the arguably obscure Atari 2600 did in it's first two years, but if we match the numbers today, the Atari 2600 has sold more units than both iPad models combined. Perhaps Atari is simply an outlier, but throw it up on the graph and it would substantially change the impression that people take away from the image, as well as highlight the absurdity I see in the comparison.

masklinn 15y ago

> That's exactly my point. No, you said adding the iPad sales to the graph would make it meaningful. What meaning would it mean to the graph? It might change the meaning of the graph to "the iPad sells well, other tablets don't" but then the consoles included are meaningless. The point of the graph is "these tablets don't sell for shit, here, compare to sales of stuff which didn't sell for shit either".

vectorpush 15y ago
I was being sarcastic when I said that adding iPad sales to the graph would make it meaningful since a comparison of 2 to 30 doesn't require a graph for digestion. The point of the graph is "these tablets don't sell for shit, here, compare to sales of stuff which didn't sell for shit either" Yes, a point that remains lost on me considering you could stack this year's tablets up against a myriad of 20 year old devices and make an equally meaningless comparison.

tptacek 15y ago

They aren't random consumer electronic devices; they're consoles, the market for which has similarities to the "tablet" market in that they're ancillary devices for consumers with winner-take-most developer ecosystems.

vectorpush 15y ago
I don't see the meaning in a graph comparing tablets from 8 months ago to game consoles from 20 years ago.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Then you don't see the value in comparing comparable markets from the history of computing to a modern market; you don't think history in any way resembles itself. Which is fine, but I think that perspective is a bit of an outlier.
  - vectorpush 15y ago
    you don't think history in any way resembles itself. I wouldn't go that far, but I think in this case, the markets are so radically different that it's difficult to take a lot of meaning from the comparisons. So far, the non-IOS tablets are selling better than the arguably obscure Atari 2600 did in it's first two years, but if we match the numbers today, the Atari 2600 has sold more units than both iPad models combined. Perhaps Atari is simply an outlier, but throw it up on the graph and it would substantially change the impression that people take away from the image, as well as highlight the absurdity I see in the comparison.