3 ms·
No, your comment did totally miss the poiint. They were discussing how they believed a better implementation would have been doable, not too expensive, and fulf
by digging 3y ago
No, your comment did totally miss the poiint. They were discussing how they believed a better implementation would have been doable, not too expensive, and fulfilled many needs in one device.
Your response was suggesting to just buy a second device. That wasn't useful; they know they can buy a second device, and we know they know that because they mentioned that device originally.
They never asked "How can I have all this functionality in my home?", but that's the question your comment was answering.
> I can dispute it's a) trivial, and b) sensible, for the vendor to have produced a different device instead
Agreed. That would have usefully contributed to the discussion about whether or not it would have been trivial and sensible.
- Jedd 3y agoIf my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bicycle. It wasn't a 'better implementation' they were proposing, just a different one. A configuration that would necessarily involve more $'s -- so this would immediately be the opposite of better for people who are happy with the actual existing price & feature matrix. It would also add more complexity - unique firmware, operational questions around what happens if either / both components are playing music before they are docked / undocked, etc. The poster was tacitly suggesting an extra $50 for unwanted features was a small price for everyone else to pay for their convenience. I was suggesting their needs could be readily satisfied, without it costing anyone else anything, by them obtaining two discrete units.