51–56 of 56 posts
I'm skeptical of the analysis because it seems the author has a singular fixation on constantly criticizing ML, and apparently works for competitors. He may be right, but whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on whether or not stuff like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light fields will work, the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience and content availability. And I really…
I'm skeptical of the analysis because it seems the author has a singular fixation on constantly criticizing ML, and apparently works for competitors. He may be right, but whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on whether or not stuff like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light fields will work, the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience and content availability. And I really…
...eh? How is "study and analysis of the politics and policy of Russia" related to this?
I'm skeptical of the analysis because it seems the author has a singular fixation on constantly criticizing ML, and apparently works for competitors. He may be right, but whether or not ML1 is a success really won't depend on whether or not stuff like the original concept of fibre optical scanning light fields will work, the ML1 will succeed or fail based on consumer experience and content availability. And I really…
And I really don't think this Kremlinology-based approach could capture it anymore ...eh? How is "study and analysis of the politics and policy of Russia" related to this?
"The Model-T is a piece of shit. I has hard tires that don't absorb the bumps, requires a manual crank, and no cup holders." Seriously, does no one realize product development is a process? Self-aggrandizing voices like this really turn me off. "Sorry the world didn't do better by you! We'll all really try harder next time, dad."
The Model-T is a great comparison. It was a commercially successful product , not a prototype under NDA. It also tells you a lot about the state of the industry. Ford Motor Company was founded with an investment of $28,000 in 1903, the equivalent of 34 Model-T cars - say around $2 million now (for a very expensive $50,000 car). It was profitable in very short order, selling several models of cars. The Model-T itself…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2b is a drop in the bucket compared to other companies like Microsoft and Apple. They’re not just building a headset, but the software to run it and funding both 1st and 3rd party content.
$2.3 billion dollars is an almost incomprehensible amount of money. Amazon raised total of $108 million before its IPO. Google raised less than $50 million before its IPO. Facebook raised $2.3 billion before the IPO, and most of it was after it became a world-wide phenomena.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its success will depend on whether it sucks or not. At this point all evidence suggests it sucks and ML's secrecy and doctored demos do little to refute that.
That’s the opposite of what the very thorough hands on Rolling Stone article had to say about it. Why are we even speculating about the user experience at this point?