41–50 of 309 posts
Maybe they don't want to pay Apple and Google a third of their revenue for the privilege of shipping software in the app stores.
And end up producing their own custom interface which has been universally panned.
Too much VC money into a gazillion startups without proper management. What can go wrong? This is the result of tech cultism and lack of proper production standards. Design Thinking is like some form of forbidden knowledge today. So much “disruption” with no clear product use case. AI is the new dotcom boom. 190 percent hype. 10 percent actual implementation. The startups have expectation to capitalize on testing wit…
Building a physical product, launching, getting feedback. They’re in the arena and regardless of how bad the initial offering is it’s more than sitting on the sidelines demanding Skunk Works from others.
Ovens that leak gas, cars where the wheel comes off, games where you only get 10 minutes in etc.
Personally, I prefer how the world actually works where you have user testing sessions, beta programs, quality management etc.
It would be much weirder to learn they built an entire tech stack specifically for the device and that it was technically impossible to port it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building a physical product, launching, getting feedback. They’re in the arena and regardless of how bad the initial offering is it’s more than sitting on the sidelines demanding Skunk Works from others.
So in your world the idea is to launch alpha quality products as early as possible. Ovens that leak gas, cars where the wheel comes off, games where you only get 10 minutes in etc. Personally, I prefer how the world actually works where you have user testing sessions, beta programs, quality management etc.
As others have commented - this is unsurprising - and makes a lot of sense from a technical perspective. Don't see this as scammy at all. And as for the product - the main qualm seems to be the lack of utility vs cost - which again does not seem scammy to me.
It’s not that it being based on android is the surprising part, it’s that they designed and sold a physical device which could be replaced with an app on the hardware you already have. The whole device seems to be “it’s Siri but as a standalone device” and since you still have to take your phone with you, it seems to provide no value.
Smartwatches are exactly that, and some people buy those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not that it being based on android is the surprising part, it’s that they designed and sold a physical device which could be replaced with an app on the hardware you already have. The whole device seems to be “it’s Siri but as a standalone device” and since you still have to take your phone with you, it seems to provide no value.
>it’s that they designed and sold a physical device which could be replaced with an app on the hardware you already have. Smartwatches are exactly that, and some people buy those.
This device is essentially a phone in every way but massively less functional. I can’t see a single thing it does better or more conveniently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building a physical product, launching, getting feedback. They’re in the arena and regardless of how bad the initial offering is it’s more than sitting on the sidelines demanding Skunk Works from others.
So in your world the idea is to launch alpha quality products as early as possible. Ovens that leak gas, cars where the wheel comes off, games where you only get 10 minutes in etc. Personally, I prefer how the world actually works where you have user testing sessions, beta programs, quality management etc.
the same is true of oculus quest devices. the choice of under the hood operating system really only matters to developers, otherwise why wouldn't you build on aosp? the real value is in how it functions in the life of the users. if they put a new llm based shell on top and built a new app ecosystem for it that makes users happy, then they've done something useful!