• Ulrich
    link
    fedilink
    English
    05 hours ago

    I’m saying that if they were trying to make some kind of sneaky change, they wouldn’t have taken five minutes to talk about it in their big event.

    I’m not worried at all about them being “sneaky”, I am worried about them abandoning their mission. Being upfront about why they’re doing that changes nothing.

    • @ilinamorato
      link
      English
      0
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      You’re ignoring everything else I said because you don’t agree with one semantic point of a partial response, so here it is again.

      Most of the time, a company can’t afford to just not release a product they worked on. They talked about why it didn’t turn out the way they wanted to in the announcement stream (the laws of physics), but assuming they had already done the investment into the R&D to produce the box, they can’t just decide “never mind.” If they do it too much, they go out of business.

      EDIT: also, you said “bit by bit” in your original message. You don’t do things bit by bit if you’re not trying to be sneaky.

      • Ulrich
        link
        fedilink
        English
        04 hours ago

        you don’t agree with one semantic point

        This has nothing to do with semantics.

        a company can’t afford to just not release a product they worked on

        I already addressed this above.

        They talked about why it didn’t turn out the way they wanted

        And I talked about how I don’t care why. And neither should you.

        You don’t do things bit by bit if you’re not trying to be sneaky.

        Yes? You do. Changing the entire direction of a company doesn’t happen overnight, regardless of whether you want to be sneaky or not.

        • @ilinamorato
          link
          English
          03 hours ago

          You really didn’t address the sunk cost problem, but honestly I don’t really care anymore. You think what you want.