Samsung used to have rugged mainline Galaxy phones. Guess what? They didn’t sell well so they don’t make them anymore.
Mass market doesn’t want this, is that simple. The people who want it are over represented online. It’s a similar case with people who want small phones, why do you think they don’t make them anymore? Because hardly anyone buys them.
It’s not a compromise, it’s a reflection of the fact that most people don’t care about these durable devices so they don’t sell well and thus they can’t be supported very well or for very long. This is just a reality of the market.
Theres this pervasive mentality in online spaces that completely disregards the consumer’s role in all of the design choices of products. They completely ignore that it is the consumer who signaled they wanted this and continue to signal they want this by buying more of the same. Corporations cannot create desires, they only fulfill them. Consumers have demonstrated they want sleek devices that are easy to operate and last only as long as they are not outclassed by next thing. The alternative of course is coming to the realization that consumers prefer convenience and novelty than durability above anything else but once you realize that you become elitist and that’s a big no no. So it must be the corporations fault!
I mean phone durability has become a lot better. I use my iPhone 14 Pro without a case, and I have dropped it a few times and more than once it has flown across the room. Just last Saturday it fell on concrete from like 4 feet high. It’s good as new.
It is also the consumer who is mostly at fault anyways. There are many durable phones out there, none of them sell like the shiny sleek phone. Do people really want devices that are more durable? If so, why aren’t they buying them?
By end of year I will be playing Switch 2 games on my ROG Ally. Feels good man.
Exactly this.
Well I would make the argument that someone stupid enough to do such a thing kinda deserves whatever consequences their actions have. I find that people learn faster when actions have consequences instead of everything being babyproofed.
I think tech is far along now that there’s a space for something that is “best of both worlds”. Something that Valve has been trying for a while yet was only successful with the Steam Deck because tech just wasn’t there yet.
Think about it like this: instead of making a whole Xbox based build, devs simply make the PC version of their game and within that PC version they make a series of graphical presets that are the Xbox version, and another one that is the handheld version. This would lower costs for them while Microsoft focuses on building a windows OS that is gaming focused and suspends all the crap that hogs performance. For you the Xbox would work pretty much the same as it always has except you can now also play Steam, GOG or Epic store games if you want (with the risk of jank). The downside of this is that the next Xbox will 100% not be subsidized if it uses this model, so be ready to pay $700 for it.
Microsoft’s track record is not great at this type of “fork” but I think for them as a company this path makes more sense than selling subsidized hardware that doesn’t move software because it doesn’t sell well. They can now sell software everywhere and if you want a more optimized experience you can buy their box.
You’re clearly not understanding Microsoft’s strategy. They are no longer interested in the hardware market that had been losing them money since forever. In fact Microsoft has been wanting to kill Xbox since like the second year it existed, so this is how they more or less managed to do it while making money instead of just losing all market share. Xbox is now a software platform, and the next Xbox in all likelihood will simply be a prebuilt PC running the Xbox app that they developed for this handheld. It wouldn’t make sense otherwise to be honest.
There’s not many Xbox (console) only games either. And none come to mind that are from this generation. All of them are also on PC.
I think this will play out well for them. What would you prefer, the locked down platform that also sells their games on PC (PlayStation) or the more open platform that lets you play anything anywhere?
Well yes, that’s typically how new markets work. This is not a bad thing.
I’ve said this a few times in a different way and I always get downvoted. The fact is that the people who will use the LLMs to think for them, were not gonna think a lot in the first place.
No shit it died. They stopped supporting it and on top of it it’s a browser that requires you to be logged into an account to use, which is a turnoff to techie people who are the most likely to adopt nee things early.
Oh and Microsoft Edge can do most of the things Arc does.
Bet you $500 that the next democrat president won’t tear down the system and will in fact give even more contracts to Palantir & co.
Us? Do you own NASA? Do you have any say on how funds are assigned to NASA? No? Then it doesn’t belong to “Us” it belongs to the government, a distinct organization with different goals and motivations than “Us” the people.
You can legally play them on an ROG Ally or other Pc handheld . It is not illegal to emulate a game that you own.
But I get that it’s just that I don’t think Nintendo games warrant buying an entire system anymore. If their consoles had more third party support maybe, but I just don’t see the value at the current price of the console.
They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.
When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.
He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.
He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX. Terrible one for Tesla though, mostly because he bought into his own myth and became a drug addict. But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.
Right? Like I’m assuming a lot of these people are self labeled progressives but they sure sound conservative to me. If any risk or collateral damage is unacceptable to make progress then we might as well just fucking go back to living in caves and be done with this civilization thing. I understand the disillusion with tech, and specifically the owners of said tech but you don’t have to swing to the other side and become a fucking Luddite or something. The problems are solvable through other mechanisms rather than just stopping tech innovation or this terrible terrible idea of nationalizing corporations.
These are the same people who complain about Trump having too much unfettered power btw. And here they are discussing giving him even more power. Ain’t that something?
No matter how much you cut from NASA it always had more funding than SpaceX did and innovation in space exploration was dead until SpaceX came around.
Nationalization will make SpaceX yet another bureaucratic, money waster for the government to maintain. By being private if SpaceX becomes shit the government can just drop them at any moment.
Giving things to the state is a dumbass idea. Exhibit A: the entire current administration.
I dunno were I stand on this one. I can see Disneys argument and agree with it on first glance, but at the same time, is the artists doing fan art infringing copyright then?