4 ms·

It seems the market isn't what you tink it is. At the same time, people also don't understand that the issue isn't what they think it is. There is a vocal mino

It seems the market isn't what you tink it is. At the same time, people also don't understand that the issue isn't what they think it is. There is a vocal minority on most of these things: - Powerusers and "learnt just enough to be dangerous" users complain about products not being targeted towards their wishes - Privacy alarmists don't like what they can't control - Commercial interests don't like having to pay for things, but do like getting paid for their own things Technically all correct, but in practise this is nearly all in the same bucket as fastfood, sugar, air pollution etc. It's something that affects everyone, but it's much easier to deny it, ignore it, and just go with the nice, easy, comfortable, and profitable paths.

dotancohen 4y ago
> It seems the market isn't what you tink it is. Then what is it? I think that the market is an opportunity for companies to compete on features, price, service, and quality. Is that incorrect? If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this. Other companies provide devices that do not require a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality, though possibly at a higher price (doubtful) or lower quality, or worse service. But the opportunity does exist. I'm happy to hear where either my understanding is wrong, or where the market is failing.
- oneplane 4y ago
  Just look around you, do you see any critical mass on both the vendor or consumer side that does something the way you describe it? Every time someone comes up with some confident theory on markets or how things should be, or how bad the things are as they currently are, they forget that the reality is 'the market' (whatever their definition happens to be at that time) did not, in fact, change due to either supply or demand. So when you were to say "the market demands offline devices, and the big companies are failing because they don't deliver that", you're either talking about a theoretical market, or about a different market, but not about the mass consumer electronics market. Because the big companies aren't failing, and regardless of the demand, no significant portion seems to be supplied.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    > Just look around you, do you see any critical mass on both the vendor or consumer side that does something the way you describe it? Yes, I do. I personally want a phone with a stylus. Samsung makes one. Somebody else wants a phone with a good camera - Apple and Samsung both make phones with terrific cameras. Somebody else wants a small phone. That's where Palm Phone and Unihertz fill the niche. Others want inexpensive phones, there is a flood of inexpensive Chinese phones. Others want security, or battery life, or E-ink screens. All of that is available. What segment do you feel is underserved?
    - oneplane 4y ago
      You're missing your own point: none of those do what you described in your reply. I'm not talking about what is there, I'm talking about what you proposed should be there but isn't there. > If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this. So where is this proposed product? Where is the significant contender that satisfies all alarmists, privacy advocates and commercial interests, making this 'problem' not a problem? There can't be conflicting truths, either we have a problem ("lack of product-market fit" or however we name it), or we don't ("market supplies products that fit").

dotancohen 4y ago

> It seems the market isn't what you tink it is. Then what is it? I think that the market is an opportunity for companies to compete on features, price, service, and quality. Is that incorrect? If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this. Other companies provide devices that do not require a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality, though possibly at a higher price (doubtful) or lower quality, or worse service. But the opportunity does exist. I'm happy to hear where either my understanding is wrong, or where the market is failing.

oneplane 4y ago
Just look around you, do you see any critical mass on both the vendor or consumer side that does something the way you describe it? Every time someone comes up with some confident theory on markets or how things should be, or how bad the things are as they currently are, they forget that the reality is 'the market' (whatever their definition happens to be at that time) did not, in fact, change due to either supply or demand. So when you were to say "the market demands offline devices, and the big companies are failing because they don't deliver that", you're either talking about a theoretical market, or about a different market, but not about the mass consumer electronics market. Because the big companies aren't failing, and regardless of the demand, no significant portion seems to be supplied.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  > Just look around you, do you see any critical mass on both the vendor or consumer side that does something the way you describe it? Yes, I do. I personally want a phone with a stylus. Samsung makes one. Somebody else wants a phone with a good camera - Apple and Samsung both make phones with terrific cameras. Somebody else wants a small phone. That's where Palm Phone and Unihertz fill the niche. Others want inexpensive phones, there is a flood of inexpensive Chinese phones. Others want security, or battery life, or E-ink screens. All of that is available. What segment do you feel is underserved?
  - oneplane 4y ago
    You're missing your own point: none of those do what you described in your reply. I'm not talking about what is there, I'm talking about what you proposed should be there but isn't there. > If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this. So where is this proposed product? Where is the significant contender that satisfies all alarmists, privacy advocates and commercial interests, making this 'problem' not a problem? There can't be conflicting truths, either we have a problem ("lack of product-market fit" or however we name it), or we don't ("market supplies products that fit").