POST OF THE DAY

[kpjam]

Sony to public: "Our product's badly built?  Well, that's your problem."

Consumer: It doesn't work right.
Sony:  It's beautiful.
Consumer:  It doesn't work right.
Sony: It's beautiful.
Consumer:  I want my money back
Sony: It's beautiful.

Wow... no wonder I can't get ahead in business.

[Jason_Miao]

Consumer: It doesn't work right.
Sony: It's beautiful.
Consumer: It doesn't work right.
Sony: It's beautiful.
Consumer: I want my money back
Sony: It's beautiful.

How many people would have bought the things in the first place if they looked ugly?  Especially if you consider how consumer trends work in Asia and that in a few years people will just go buy something else anyway, it's not profitable for a Japanese company to worry about improving how well their product works after certain point.

[Dracos]

Miao:

Eh.  The turn around for handhelds, according to the most recent figures, is 5 or so years.  Console's are about the same, and sony has shown a history of going ahead and completely redesigning the system towards the end of that cycle just to go ahead and try and grab a few thousand more sales off of it.  So definitely, this isn't a company that shys away from tossing in a good deal of work late in the game.

Looking over it, that really doesn't look like a 'mistake' from an engineer's perspective.  That would've been clearly visible in their CADs long before they even started building it.

It wasn't a question of 'improving' versus 'not improving'.  That was something they could see at the design phase and decided it was better to keep in.  They made a thinking decision that it would be better to be a few centimeters smaller and more symmetrical then it was to ensure that all of the keys functioned at the same high level of effectiveness.  Yes, you could attribute that had they spent more time, they may have discovered a way that matched both, but that's somewhat unlikely without completely reworking the system.  In the end, at that point in the design, they choose to go with a smaller more symmetric system over having the square key work right.  This isn't the same as a design mistake, where something gets through that shouldn't, or doesn't work as designed and intended.  Nor is this a hardware/code error that required 'work' to fix.  The time investment, at any point prior to production, to change it, was insignificant.  A minute in CAD and double checking by thier design engineers.

It wouldn't have looked ugly, either way they decided.  They just decided for a touch more symmetry over functionality.  It's a decision I wouldn't make and it's a decision that going 'yadda, yadda, It's GORGEOUS' isn't really an excuse for in a machine meant for use for a decision that hinders usability.  Does it hinder usability much?  Probably not at the moment, but the real thing is if/when it does, Sony's already trying to state 'no, no, that's by design.  No defect for returns'.

Dracos

[kpjam]

Consumer: It doesn't work right.
Sony: It's beautiful.
Consumer: It doesn't work right.
Sony: It's beautiful.
Consumer: I want my money back
Sony: It's beautiful.

How many people would have bought the things in the first place if they looked ugly?  Especially if you consider how consumer trends work in Asia and that in a few years people will just go buy something else anyway, it's not profitable for a Japanese company to worry about improving how well their product works after certain point.

If it had looked ugly, or from the sounds, a little less good looking, I don't think it would have sold much less  -- hence, why I'll never make it in business.  Sony is most likely right.  But the world will never know because the decision that was made, was made.  I also found that the quotes made it seem like Sony didn't care at all about functionality, only aesthetics.

I do agree that in Sony's marketplace, the decision for a little less functionality for something more visually pleasing may have been the right one, if you're concerned about sales.  I, as a consumer and a human being take offense at that fact.  Not so much that they made the choice they did, but that they probably made the correct one in terms of sales.  Humanity needs to be nuked and started over.  So I mock it!  I mock consumers!  I mock you humans!  And then I lament the fact that I am one.

[Kwokinator]

Wow, so much bitterness and anger... @_@

*pulls up a couch and sits on a chair with a notepad*

Care to talk about it, kewpie-chan? ^_^

[kpjam]

Wow, so much bitterness and anger... @_@

*pulls up a couch and sits on a chair with a notepad*

Care to talk about it, kewpie-chan? ^_^

KWOK!!!

Well you see, people don't seem to understand that being right and working right is better than looking good.  

Anyway...

KWOK!!!!!

I just like saying, KWOK!!!!!

[Kwokinator]

Stop KWOK'ing, people will think you're a QUACK ^_^

[Jason_Miao]

I do agree that in Sony's marketplace, the decision for a little less functionality for something more visually pleasing may have been the right one, if you're concerned about sales. I, as a consumer and a human being take offense at that fact. Not so much that they made the choice they did, but that they probably made the correct one in terms of sales. one.

Looks are part of a product, not separate from it, and many consumers WILL make purchases based on that paradigm.  I guarentee you that more people will drool over a phone that looks like it's sleek and cool, rather than one that looks like a shoebox, even if the shoebox-phone has superior clarity and range.  Phones, I-pods, handheld games, and many other luxuries we use aren't just products anymore; they're also accessories.

If that's hard to wrap your mind around, let's look at it another way.  Why do we have more than one car manufacturer in the US?  Because way back in the day, you could buy a Model-T in any color, "as long as it's black."  Ford's competitors didn't sell better cars for higher prices;  they sold comparable cars with different colors and nicer exteriors for higher prices.  People wanted to show off their purchases back then, and they couldn't do that with something that looked roughly like a box on wheels.  So, do you think those non-Ford-car buyers should have been nuked?  Today, a Volvo's exterior crumples in such a way to minimize harm to the occupants, which greatly contributes to Volvo cars higher safety raitings.  Should every car have the Volvo shape?  Should we nuke everyone who doesn't drive one?  

What about iMac users?  First generation iMacs were expensive as hell compared to the hardware you received.  Should those people have been nuked?  Hell, what about shoes?  High heels damage the wearer's feet and spine.  Should we nuke people who buy high heels?  What about diamonds?  Not only does wearing carbon around your neck do little that glass would not, diamonds aren't even naturally rare gems.  Shall we nuke people who purchase diamonds?



Incidentally, my answer to these questions is yes, but mainly because I'd like to play with a few nukes.

[Edward]

Demon Genma, god Ranma, and based on a song.

http://www.anifics.com/index.php?webtag=FANFIC&msg=123.1

[Brian]

Something that's not as depressing, but still lets us laugh at some people.

Which ones?

Nintendo's would-be Intergalactic Bounty Hunters.

[Dracos]

GTA: MYST

Dracos

[Pahan]

Vagina Monologues comes to UW.  The article in the campus daily paper reads like something from The Onion.

"Before The Vagina Monologues, I would maybe look at my vagina once a month," sophomore actress Sarah Maier said. "Now I look at it like twice a day."

[Carthrat]

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/children/kidtalk.mspx

Don't know 1337? Need to translate the messages of your kids? Microsoft can help!

[metroid composite]

blasphemy--they misspelled r0xx0rz...

[Edward]

"Rant against KLSymph's Oppression"

http://addventure.bast-enterprises.de/display_comment.php?episode=133041&n=27