Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

pando.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#11

Post by DanAndersen »

drakaal wrote: post #7

1. The plural of Lego is Lego. 2. You get a set with 1273 pieces. You find out there are only 1265 pieces. There is great sadness. 3. When you combine Yellow Tiger and Red Tiger and all their friends you get Voltron. You can play with friends and share, at the end of the day you uncombine and you each have a tiger. Much fun is had. With Lego if you combine Lord of the Rings and Spiderman much fun is had. When you try…

Addressing #1:

"Photoshop" is not a verb (and should be replaced with the equally-easy-to-say verb "enhance using Adobe® Photoshop® software") [1], but that doesn't stop people from using it as such anyway. The presence of an extra 's' doesn't impair meaning and focusing on it tends to be a distraction.

[1] http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html#photo...

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#12

Post by drakaal »

DanAndersen wrote: post #11
drakaal wrote: post #7

1. The plural of Lego is Lego. 2. You get a set with 1273 pieces. You find out there are only 1265 pieces. There is great sadness. 3. When you combine Yellow Tiger and Red Tiger and all their friends you get Voltron. You can play with friends and share, at the end of the day you uncombine and you each have a tiger. Much fun is had. With Lego if you combine Lord of the Rings and Spiderman much fun is had. When you try…

Addressing #1: "Photoshop" is not a verb (and should be replaced with the equally-easy-to-say verb "enhance using Adobe® Photoshop® software") [1], but that doesn't stop people from using it as such anyway. The presence of an extra 's' doesn't impair meaning and focusing on it tends to be a distraction. [1] http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html#photo...

If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid. Grammar does matter, especially when you are trying to convince the world you aren't an idiot.

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#13

Post by thwarted »

hayksaakian wrote: post #8
gkoberger wrote: post #5

I feel this takes away a lot of the fun. There won't be mixing and matching of sets and peices; no experimenting nor creating new things. Partially because it won't be allowed (what parent will want to re-sort the sets), but mostly because it's impossible (you only get one set at a time). Legos were awesome because you could experiment and build and create new things. Now, they're just a paint-by-numbers, follow the…

You can still buy a 'bucket' of random bricks. For various reasons, those probably generate less revenue than sponsored sets. ex: marvel, starwars themed legos

[random buckets of bricks] probably generate less revenue than sponsored sets. ex: marvel, starwars themed legos

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2014/02/infoporn-legos/

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#14

Post by bostonpete »

DanAndersen wrote: post #11
drakaal wrote: post #7

1. The plural of Lego is Lego. 2. You get a set with 1273 pieces. You find out there are only 1265 pieces. There is great sadness. 3. When you combine Yellow Tiger and Red Tiger and all their friends you get Voltron. You can play with friends and share, at the end of the day you uncombine and you each have a tiger. Much fun is had. With Lego if you combine Lord of the Rings and Spiderman much fun is had. When you try…

Addressing #1: "Photoshop" is not a verb (and should be replaced with the equally-easy-to-say verb "enhance using Adobe® Photoshop® software") [1], but that doesn't stop people from using it as such anyway. The presence of an extra 's' doesn't impair meaning and focusing on it tends to be a distraction. [1] http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html#photo...

Any story about Legos on the internet is required to include comments pointing out three facts:

1. Plural of Lego is Lego or Lego bricks

2. Kids in this day and age are lacking creativity because they never combine their Legos into a big box when they're done building the initial design

3. The makers of Legos demean girls by marketing girly sets to them.

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#15

Post by jcagalawan »

drakaal wrote: post #12
DanAndersen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addressing #1: "Photoshop" is not a verb (and should be replaced with the equally-easy-to-say verb "enhance using Adobe® Photoshop® software") [1], but that doesn't stop people from using it as such anyway. The presence of an extra 's' doesn't impair meaning and focusing on it tends to be a distraction. [1] http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html#photo...

If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid. Grammar does matter, especially when you are trying to convince the world you aren't an idiot.

Octopuses is valid. As is octopodes, but octopi is a freak Greek-Latin hybrid by people trying to convince the world that they aren't idiots but is now also valid.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyY2mK8pxk

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#16

Post by wvenable »

gkoberger wrote: post #5

I feel this takes away a lot of the fun. There won't be mixing and matching of sets and peices; no experimenting nor creating new things. Partially because it won't be allowed (what parent will want to re-sort the sets), but mostly because it's impossible (you only get one set at a time). Legos were awesome because you could experiment and build and create new things. Now, they're just a paint-by-numbers, follow the…

Nothing has changed. I had so many cool Lego sets as a kid with all kinds of cool pieces. I'd build those sets once, play with them, and then that mass of pieces would join the rest. I always build different and crazy things.

Now my son has a bunch of mixed up Lego sets and occasionally gets a new Star Wars set. As much as he loves playing with the pre-built stuff, Luke Skywalker also spends a considerable amount of time down on the ranch hanging out with cowboys.

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#17

Post by zem »

jcagalawan wrote: post #15
drakaal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid. Grammar does matter, especially when you are trying to convince the world you aren't an idiot.

Octopuses is valid. As is octopodes, but octopi is a freak Greek-Latin hybrid by people trying to convince the world that they aren't idiots but is now also valid. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyY2mK8pxk

and yet "octopi" is the most euphonious of the three, and deserves to win for that alone if nothing else.

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#18

Post by PhasmaFelis »

drakaal wrote: post #12
DanAndersen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addressing #1: "Photoshop" is not a verb (and should be replaced with the equally-easy-to-say verb "enhance using Adobe® Photoshop® software") [1], but that doesn't stop people from using it as such anyway. The presence of an extra 's' doesn't impair meaning and focusing on it tends to be a distraction. [1] http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html#photo...

If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid. Grammar does matter, especially when you are trying to convince the world you aren't an idiot.

> If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid.

Only if your pitch target is stupid, because "Octopuses" is correct according to any English dictionary you'll find.

There's a point here somewhere about the dangers of hyper-prescriptive grammar.

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#19

Post by dragonwriter »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #18
drakaal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid. Grammar does matter, especially when you are trying to convince the world you aren't an idiot.

> If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid. Only if your pitch target is stupid, because "Octopuses" is correct according to any English dictionary you'll find. There's a point here somewhere about the dangers of hyper-prescriptive grammar.

> > If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid.

> Only if your pitch target is stupid, because "Octopuses" is correct according to any English dictionary you'll find.

"Octopusses" ≠ "Octopuses". Considering that the "Octopusses" line was in response to a post about the impact of an extra "s"...

Re: “Netflix for Legos” is an awesome idea. But can it scale?

#20

Post by drakaal »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #18
drakaal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid. Grammar does matter, especially when you are trying to convince the world you aren't an idiot.

> If you are doing a pitch, "Netflix for Octopusses" would make you look stupid. Only if your pitch target is stupid, because "Octopuses" is correct according to any English dictionary you'll find. There's a point here somewhere about the dangers of hyper-prescriptive grammar.

How many S does mine have? How many does yours have?
Post reply on HN