4 ms·

> A good hockey player don't skate to where the puck is. I'm not a hockey player. > He skates to where it will be. The time scale for hockey players is secon

by lapcat 2y ago

> A good hockey player don't skate to where the puck is. I'm not a hockey player. > He skates to where it will be. The time scale for hockey players is seconds, not years. This is such a useless cliché. Most developers have very limited resources. Apple can afford to invest in pipe dreams (reportedly they spent $billions working on the now cancelled car project), but I certainly can't.

reaperducer 2y ago
[flagged]
- KronisLV 2y ago
  While your point is valid, I think the opposite might be as well. Just ask the people who were developing games for Stadia: https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/30/23381106/google-stadia-shutdown-shocked-developers-too https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/30/23381106/google-stadia-sh... > News that Google would be closing down Stadia was a big surprise for everyone, including the developers making games for the platform. Now, Apple can probably pull off a lot of stuff, but with how quickly products get killed nowadays, sometimes you might end up betting on a future that will never come to pass.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    That comes with the territory though. The mere possibility of a 10x profit likely entails the possibility of a 10x risk somewhere, borne by someone, or groups of someones.
  - GeekyBear 2y ago
    > with how quickly products get killed nowadays Apple's history is to pick a strategic product direction and then continue to iterate on their hardware and software for that product year after year. For instance, Apple Watch. Throwing products over the wall and killing them if they don't prove to be an immediate success is more if a Google/Microsoft thing. Although it's fair to point out that Microsoft did at least update HoloLens hardware once before they killed it. The issue with both HoloLens and Vision Pro is the nearly identical price point. You aren't going to see mass market sales figures until you can reach mass market price points.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > If you can't grok an analogy, that's on you. Please review and respect the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > 1975: Don't bother writing MicroSoft BASIC. The customer base is miniscule. You're cherry-picking a single success, with the benefit of hindsight. How about listing all of the nascent technologies from 1975? It's likely that many of them flopped, and investing in them was a waste. > if your company, or its leadership, lack vision for the future and only invest in the present I am my company, a sole proprietor with very limited resources. I do invest in the future to some extent, but I can't invest in every possible future. The Vision Pro future does not look particularly promising. Besides, you don't need to be first to be successful. I certainly wasn't the first to any platform, not even close. The thing about hockey is, there's only one puck on the ice. And it's a zero-sum game, one winner and one loser. But that's not even remotely true of tech.
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > I recommend you do the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I quoted where you violated the guidelines: "If you can't grok an analogy, that's on you." That's a personal insult. Could you please quote where you think I violated the guidelines?
    - 1123581321 2y ago
      He gave you a great fuller explanation, and understood what you were saying the first time. You are being rude.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  It's a risk / reward tradeoff; can you as an individual or a company afford to lose on the bet that Vision will become successful enough, AND that your app will become successful? There's much safer bets for anyone out there at the moment.
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  Buddy a hockey player skates to where the puck of being passed not to where the puck might be in the second half. I think it’s you who deeply deeply misunderstands the metaphor. Or to put it another way. “Timing is everything”

by lapcat 2y ago

reaperducer 2y ago

[flagged]

KronisLV 2y ago
While your point is valid, I think the opposite might be as well. Just ask the people who were developing games for Stadia: https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/30/23381106/google-stadia-shutdown-shocked-developers-too https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/30/23381106/google-stadia-sh... > News that Google would be closing down Stadia was a big surprise for everyone, including the developers making games for the platform. Now, Apple can probably pull off a lot of stuff, but with how quickly products get killed nowadays, sometimes you might end up betting on a future that will never come to pass.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  That comes with the territory though. The mere possibility of a 10x profit likely entails the possibility of a 10x risk somewhere, borne by someone, or groups of someones.
- GeekyBear 2y ago
  > with how quickly products get killed nowadays Apple's history is to pick a strategic product direction and then continue to iterate on their hardware and software for that product year after year. For instance, Apple Watch. Throwing products over the wall and killing them if they don't prove to be an immediate success is more if a Google/Microsoft thing. Although it's fair to point out that Microsoft did at least update HoloLens hardware once before they killed it. The issue with both HoloLens and Vision Pro is the nearly identical price point. You aren't going to see mass market sales figures until you can reach mass market price points.
lapcat 2y ago
> If you can't grok an analogy, that's on you. Please review and respect the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > 1975: Don't bother writing MicroSoft BASIC. The customer base is miniscule. You're cherry-picking a single success, with the benefit of hindsight. How about listing all of the nascent technologies from 1975? It's likely that many of them flopped, and investing in them was a waste. > if your company, or its leadership, lack vision for the future and only invest in the present I am my company, a sole proprietor with very limited resources. I do invest in the future to some extent, but I can't invest in every possible future. The Vision Pro future does not look particularly promising. Besides, you don't need to be first to be successful. I certainly wasn't the first to any platform, not even close. The thing about hockey is, there's only one puck on the ice. And it's a zero-sum game, one winner and one loser. But that's not even remotely true of tech.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > I recommend you do the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I quoted where you violated the guidelines: "If you can't grok an analogy, that's on you." That's a personal insult. Could you please quote where you think I violated the guidelines?
  - 1123581321 2y ago
    He gave you a great fuller explanation, and understood what you were saying the first time. You are being rude.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
It's a risk / reward tradeoff; can you as an individual or a company afford to lose on the bet that Vision will become successful enough, AND that your app will become successful? There's much safer bets for anyone out there at the moment.
tsunamifury 2y ago
Buddy a hockey player skates to where the puck of being passed not to where the puck might be in the second half. I think it’s you who deeply deeply misunderstands the metaphor. Or to put it another way. “Timing is everything”