Its called marketing.
They're actually building those devices. It's not marketing if you can buy them.
Why wouldn't they?
Because most companies do. They gloss over the shifts so that they can focus on other stuff.
Why does being clear about why they've abandoned their mission excuse anything?
Because it shows that they haven't. They talked about the work they put into trying to make it modular.
That's the opposite of what's happening though.
For this one product, maybe. But again, this was one of the four products they announced yesterday.
- It's not marketing if you can buy them.
  ...yes? It is? Why would you market a product that no one can buy? LOL
  Because most companies do.
  And that means they should?
  They talked about the work they put into trying to make it modular.
  "Aw sorry, we really tried to make something" doesn't cut it. If you can't do it, don't do it. Simple as.
  But again, this was one of the four products they announced yesterday.
  How many products that are antithetical to their entire stated purpose do they need to make before you see that as a red flag?
  
  ...yes? It is?
  Sorry. It's not just marketing if you can buy them.
  And that means they should?
  Of course not! What do you think I'm arguing for? I'm saying that if they were trying to make some kind of sneaky change, they wouldn't have taken five minutes to talk about it in their big event.
  "Aw sorry, we really tried to make something" doesn't cut it. If you can't do it, don't do it. Simple as.
  This ignores the realities of running a company. Once you've sunk development dollars into a project, you can't just walk away from it. You have to recoup your investments somehow, or you just end up hemorrhaging money and go out of business and can't do anything ever again.
  How many products that are antithetical to their entire stated purpose do they need to make before you see that as a red flag?
  Well it needs to not be a single component in a product that's a tiny minority of their business, for one thing.
  
  I'm saying that if they were trying to make some kind of sneaky change, they wouldn't have taken five minutes to talk about it in their big event.
  I'm not worried at all about them being "sneaky", I am worried about them abandoning their mission. Being upfront about why they're doing that changes nothing.
  
  You're ignoring everything else I said because you don't agree with one semantic point of a partial response, so here it is again.
  Most of the time, a company can't afford to just not release a product they worked on. They talked about why it didn't turn out the way they wanted to in the announcement stream (the laws of physics), but assuming they had already done the investment into the R&D to produce the box, they can't just decide "never mind." If they do it too much, they go out of business.
  EDIT: also, you said "bit by bit" in your original message. You don't do things bit by bit if you're not trying to be sneaky.
  
  you don't agree with one semantic point
  This has nothing to do with semantics.
  a company can't afford to just not release a product they worked on
  I already addressed this above.
  They talked about why it didn't turn out the way they wanted
  And I talked about how I don't care why. And neither should you.
  You don't do things bit by bit if you're not trying to be sneaky.
  Yes? You do. Changing the entire direction of a company doesn't happen overnight, regardless of whether you want to be sneaky or not.
  
  You really didn't address the sunk cost problem, but honestly I don't really care anymore. You think what you want.

270 comments