Jump to content

Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1967 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Mony I will say one thing I have said before^^

'Amateurs'

LL don't have a clue as to what they are doing the CEO will get the kick when the investors realise their income has dropped because the CEO has destabilised the Sl economy!

In another thread I stated I have emailed LL asking why they have not made an official statement on the blog since many SL residents don't speak English and at least if it was on the blog they could translate the text, over a 3rd of SL residents are from non English speaking counties! and LL have totally ignored them!

That alone says a lot about LL does it not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Perrie Juran wrote:


Mony Lindman wrote:

The discussion with Oz and Peter Linden has been posted here:

I wish i could comment on what they said but since they said nothing except "keep calm and carry on".. i cant.

I will therefore comment on an apparently minor aspect but that says a lot more than words: their appearance
:)

So you have there 2 directors , LL Technical Director and LL Global Communications Director, both coming in front of the camera to represent the leadership of LL and to make important statements in a very important moment, knowing that their avatars will be seen by a lot of SL users.

Aaaand.. they both wear noob skins and clothes , probably from the library and the Communication Director of LL .. has no shoes..

Did i say i will comment on this ? Well.. in fact i should say only .. no comment.

But just to make sure my "no comment" is understood , I will explain.. If these LL officials don't even spend as much time in SL as it is needed to create a "not noob" avatar, how will they ever be able to understand whats going on here ? And if these LL officials dont even feel the NEED of having an at least normal look when they move in the virtual world that they lead.. how can we ever hope that they will ever love this world the way we do..

I know .. they are in fact "coders" and we all know that this kind of people look like noobs or dont care how they look even in RL (see Bill Gates or Zukerberg) but what we have here are 2 DIRECTORS of a VIRTUAL WORLD in which everybody can and does look a lot better than in RL. And if these 2 directors dont have the artistic skills to make a normal avatar , at least , out of respect for their users , they could have bought a ready made one.. even the (usual for scripters) mouse or dog or fox .. and even the same for both if they are so bad paid that they cant afford a different one for each ... but to come in front of the camera in just socks without shoes .. as a Director of Communications.. really no comment ..

 

 

I listened to the first few minutes and really need to go back and finish it.

But it made me so ill I had to stop.

Is Jessica that naive?  In no way shape or form does Peter put his professional reputation on the chopping block by answering that question, "Are there plans to shut SL down?"  What a moot point. 

There may be no plans to shut it down to today but if tomorrow the Board decided to shut SL down he can stand there with complete integrity, announce it, and if anything it enhances his corporate reputation and value because said what the Board told him to.

What a bunch of unadulterated mooing.

I appreciate that she is trying to bring some calm to people but we are not that dumb.

Jessica, we aren't all children out here.

Damn right Perrie!

They didn't ask my question about what Ebbe said on page 20 of this thread either. But at the after talk Jessica had to admit that it might be possible they close it regardless if it were making a profit, understanding that it is about cost benefit analysis and profit margin.

Don't believe the 'spin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:

You'd have to address HiFi on the disadvantages of crypto currency since they are the ones planning on using it. ;-)

My initial thought on the subject was that user machines on that grid technology will be used also for mining. - Which is totally viable. 

i think they will revisit that when they start trying to code the Currency Server. Well before that even

they havent got one yet. Just the name: Currency Server. Is no code yet. And a idea that will be some kinda crypto goes with it

+

basically before they do start coding it then their money people will go: lets talk about M4 ok. And the codies will go ok. And then after the codies work out what M4 is they will go: oh! yeah

and the money people will go: maybe we mint them instead ok. And the techies will go: like RL minting? And the money people will go: Yes that be a good idea

and bc they now all understand M4 then they will all go: Actually is actual even a better idea for us that people dont mint/mine their own money. bc it dont cost anything for us to print digital banknotes. Which is what will have to happen when run out of coins to mine anyways

can easy enough make some algo with some way massive upper limit even of potential mines. But the math show that is computationally not scalable. Is not like these people dont know about kolmogorov complexity. Or even something less complex. Like find all prime numbers

the alternative algo is pretty simple. really easy and scales to massive. for (banknotes = 1 ; ; banknotes++);

so much easier just to print the banknotes from the start. Can print as many as needed and people can just easy buy of us when they need them

+

and some codies will go: but how we going to stop hyper-inflation?

and the money people will go: same way as we do in RL. We own the Treasury Mint. We are like the Bank of England and the Fed all in one. We control the production (the minting) and supply (liquidity) of money. and we also are the regulators of the exchange market. Same like in RL money. Same like LL are with SL and L$

+

the RL money mint system isnt perfect. But is the best there is. Mostly bc has been worked out and proofed over 1000s and 1000s of years of human experience. Is a trust system. It isnt the production of money that secures a system. Can have a foolproof automated mining/minting money production system. But if is no trust then is worthless. Can ask Mt Gox about that

+

how the money is produced/mined/minted is of little consequence and is unimportant

i just need to be able to trust the people holding my money in their bank. That they will act prudently in their duty to me. And bc I will never trust them completely then I pay deposit insurance to someone else. So that I can get my money back from them if the bank fall over

i dont trust the insurer either really. What I trust in is the castle owned by some guy in England and I trust in the Manhattan rooftop apartment owned by some American lady. bc if the bank fall over then I will get that castle and apartment and I will sell them and get my money back that way

bc after go all the way up the insurer chain then at the end is this guy and this lady. Who back my bank with everything they own unlimited. And I am happy to pay them a fee so I dont have to bear the risk that they are willing to accept

is the trust in the castle is what the 100s of millions are into. They know where that castle is. They dont know where is the castle of some random/anonymous internet nick/nym

+

where I think mining is of consequence is when is used to bring people into the game who would probably not bother otherwise. Or spend as much time logged into the game than they would otherwise. The attraction of free money and/or assets in the game. The grinders. the miners. Same like the L$ can get of Linden Realms game. Votebox stuffing. Camping. Cone. Xploder. Tree. etc

pimp up the volume

+

when is no castle behind it then is a game. And so play the game with that in mind

can argue that anon/nick/nym is better. Better for who? Is better for the guy what owns the castle. He dont have to put it on the line to play in the anon/nick/nym money game

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:

 

The thing I was pondering about the whole arrangement was that the Lab chose to do this on FIrestorm's sim, presumably by invitation from Jessica. I'm not sure how to interpret that choice of venue.

The event comes on the heels of Ebbe's initial statements about SL2 which was at a TPV dev meeting.

 

It's obvious to me why the venue's were chosen. The TPV community is full of gloom and doomers, not everyone of course. What better place to make a "controversial" announcement than there. The objective was to gauge the reactions of the most combative residents and make the concordant damage control.

The reason I see as why there is nothing "official" as far as an announcement is to take care of the house first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the LL "cheerleaders" get on today to tell us we are all wrong as usual, I thought I would add my two cents. I purposely waited to sleep on my thoughts and just watched the meeting again on YouTube. As a retired computer programmer, believe me when I say deadlines always come from managers who can't tell the difference from their butt from a hole in the ground. At best, I don't see a beta for "Second Life Lite" available for testers until two years from now in the summer of 2016. After a solid year of testing (and I am being generous with that estimate), they will open it up to the very creative people of present-day Second Life so they can build content. Now on this point, I can only guess as I am not a content creator so I am going to give that a year also. If a content creator sees a different time period, please let us know. Also during this time period, LL can continue fine tuning "Lite". That brings us to the summer of 2018 when LL can finally open the doors to "Lite". It all comes down to one question : "Do you believe that Linden Labs can catch lightning in the bottle again and recreate the magic of Second Life?". For myself, I can't tell you where I will be in four years, maybe even in "Lite".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


WickedWanda1956 wrote:

 It all comes down to one question : "Do you believe that Linden Labs can catch lightning in the bottle again and recreate the magic of Second Life?". For myself, I can't tell you where I will be in four years, maybe even in "Lite".

It is always hard to predict what the next fad will be and LL's main problem is they are not even on the platforms where the fad happens at the moment (and in the near future.)

If they think they will develop with Microsoft tools, when Microsoft have NO BEARING whatsoever in the mobile market, they seriously need to think again.

Unfortunately for those who think the next SL will be super high performance graphics on gaming rigs; think again. There is no 100+ million market for such a thing. There is not even sufficient hardware for it currently in customer hands, and with traditional PC sales nosediving such a target group will not fly...

When I worked in product management in the most influentual and forward thinking company in the industry, we always had 3+ product development plans with lots of beta rounds and products that were even scrapped hours before launch because the market had changed. So there is nothing wrong with having a 2018 product launch target, BUT making announcment at this time (if that is the real target) is borderline... Our mantra was "Market creation", not to be followers, but also not launch till the product was right. 

Therfore it is erosional on own customer and creator base to announce at this stage, even to the point iof being detrimental.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


WickedWanda1956 wrote:

Before the LL "cheerleaders" get on today to tell us we are all wrong as usual, I thought I would add my two cents. I purposely waited to sleep on my thoughts and just watched the meeting again on YouTube. As a retired computer programmer, believe me when I say deadlines always come from managers who can't tell the difference from their butt from a hole in the ground. At best, I don't see a beta for "Second Life Lite" available for testers until two years from now in the summer of 2016. After a solid year of testing (and I am being generous with that estimate), they will open it up to the very creative people of present-day Second Life so they can build content. Now on this point, I can only guess as I am not a content creator so I am going to give that a year also. If a content creator sees a different time period, please let us know. Also during this time period, LL can continue fine tuning "Lite". That brings us to the summer of 2018 when LL can finally open the doors to "Lite". It all comes down to one question : "Do you believe that Linden Labs can catch lightning in the bottle again and recreate the magic of Second Life?". For myself, I can't tell you where I will be in four years, maybe even in "Lite".

Besides the timeline, I kind of agree with you. The timeline, we have no clue about, as we don't even know when they started. Ebbe is saying we'll see beta next year, so we have to go by that. I agree that once creators get in there, it will likely take another year to iron things out, and get features that the public will want and need.

The difference in my predictions has to do with my knowledge of SL. No, I don't think LL can't even come close to replicating SL in anyway, shape, or form. It is because of this that I see both worlds working side by side for a very long time. I think the new World will be successful, if they keeps the same type of model in place, but some aspects of SL just won't make it over, and many will opt to stay in the REAL SL. I see the new platform evolving the way the people inside it want it to evolve. So, if half of SL rejects the new platform, then it can't ever replace SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gavin, I completely agree. It is the erosion of present-day Second Life that worries me the most. I don't think that Linden Labs is taking the current consumer base as being needed for future business. And maybe we are not what they want for "Lite". But until "Lite" is up and profitable, Linden Labs need present-day Second Life to be profitable. And with all that has happened in the past two weeks, I VERY seriously doubt it. Speaking for myself, I am making changes (still renting but no longer a premium member and budgeting my money spending basically a fourth of what I used to spend in a week). But if content begins to close on present-day Second Life, I will just have to hope to find something else to occupy my time.

 

LINDEN LABS MUST ADDRESS RETENTION FOR BOTH CONSUMERS AND CONTENT CREATORS YESTERDAY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Medhue. I really see the new Second Life being more of a mobile app than anything else. As such, it has no interest from me. But to try and capture a share of that market does make smart business sense. I just had a thought. What is the average amount of time a person spends on present-day Second Life per visit versus what their business models (and I sure hope they have one) are projecting will be the average amount of time on "Second Life Lite" per visit? Is "Second Life Lite" going to be nothing more that a virtual Facebook/Twitter account? I REALLY worry about erosion from present-day Second Life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:


WickedWanda1956 wrote:

 It all comes down to one question : "Do you believe that Linden Labs can catch lightning in the bottle again and recreate the magic of Second Life?". For myself, I can't tell you where I will be in four years, maybe even in "Lite".

It is always hard to predict what the next fad will be and LL's main problem is they are not even on the platforms where the fad happens at the moment (and in the near future.)

If they think they will develop with Microsoft tools, when Microsoft have NO BEARING whatsoever in the mobile market, they seriously need to think again.

Unfortunately for those who think the next SL will be super high performance graphics on gaming rigs; think again. There is no 100+ million market for such a thing. There is not even sufficient hardware for it currently in customer hands, and with traditional PC sales nosediving such a target group will not fly...

When I worked in product management in the most influentual and forward thinking company in the industry, we always had 3+ product development plans with lots of beta rounds and products that were even scrapped hours before launch because the market had changed. So there is nothing wrong with having a 2018 product launch target, BUT making announcment at this time (if that is the real target) is borderline... Our mantra was "Market creation", not to be followers, but also not launch till the product was right. 

Therfore it is erosional on own customer and creator base to announce at this stage, even to the point iof being detrimental.  

I see a bunch of assumptions here that do not match up with reality. As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho. It really does need a bigger screen, IMHO.

As SLGo has proven, you can have super high performance graphics without a gaming rig at all. Also, It's not really that big a deal to port games onto almost any device today. Heck, with Unity, it is literally a 1 button click and your game can be exported to play on any system out there.

I'll also take on the notion that gaming rigs are somehow not a big part of the market. Today, I own more gaming rigs than I ever have in my life. I don't know a single person, that only uses a tablet, Every1 has a PC in their home, and if it was purchased in the last few years, it is a gaming rig, as almost all PCs sold today can handle most games. Yes, the traditional tower PC is no longer consumes the majority of sales, but they are still a huge part of the market. 1 of the most popular Youtube channels I watch is a Gaming PC store. How the heck could they be as popular as they are if the gaming PC was not a significant player?

Like I said, these are just assumptions that aren't actually proven in real life. The only way anouncing all this now is a negative, is if people continue to fear monger and promote their wrong assumptions. The only real criticism I can give the Lab on this, is implying that the new world will be an SL sequel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:

 

As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho.


Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips.

Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites


WickedWanda1956 wrote:

Thanks Medhue. I really see the new Second Life being more of a mobile app than anything else. As such, it has no interest from me. But to try and capture a share of that market does make smart business sense. I just had a thought. What is the average amount of time a person spends on present-day Second Life per visit versus what their business models (and I sure hope they have one) are projecting will be the average amount of time on "Second Life Lite" per visit? Is "Second Life Lite" going to be nothing more that a virtual Facebook/Twitter account? I REALLY worry about erosion from present-day Second Life.

Why would you assume it will just be a mobile app? Who the heck came up with SL lite? Again more eroneous assumptions? This is really getting to the point of ridiculousness. Why make any of these assumptions?

As far as SL erosion, I see this as another assumption that the facts do not support. Of course SL has been gradually declining for years now, but this new world isn't going to make that happen faster. If anything, It could very much help the REAL SL. I also have a completely different impression of the new world tho. It seems most people that are predicting SL dome, have the opinion that the new world will replace SL. I think this is an almost crazy assumption to make. It assumes many things, like LL has a clue how to even do that. I do not have that much faith in them, as they have shown little over the years that they even understand SL. What I think is more plausible, is that they do understand the principles that made SL successful. So, although the new world venture might become profitable, it will not be, and could never be, the REAL SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


 as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market.

As SLGo has proven, you can have super high performance graphics without a gaming rig at all.

About the Surface Pro... it is a crippled Windows notebook with hardly any battery life and graphics performance. Even the 2010 MacBook Air had better performance. But more important, it sells in the in hundreds of thousands if even that per quarter. 

Microsoft sold over 12 million copies of Office for iPad the first week in marketing in comparison. Meaning in the first week of marketing 6x as many iPads had Office than Surface Pros sold ever. 

 

SLGo? 

It can have some performance because it has a render farm at the backend streaming the rendered output to you.

Guess what? The tech is DOA – current SL can barely support 65k users on the server backend where the client itself does the rendering. That's on some backend 6000 servers. 

Scale this to hundred+ of millions of users with concurrency in tens of millions? Not gonna happen :-)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


madjim wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

 

As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho.


Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips.

Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim

Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:
Why make any of these assumptions?


Because the CEO announced vapourware before his PR function had even made up any prepared lies.

Leaving speculation as the only game in town.

Father "Mr Altberg admitted: 'We're not ready to talk about this yet' " Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


madjim wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

 

As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho.


Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips.

Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim

Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

Apple is STILL a loser. Check those stats of iPhones against Android. Just like Mac and PC all over again.

Father "Losers buy Apple products because they want to be like other losers" Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:

Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

Fact is that Apple has close to 150 billion USD in the bank, and can fit Google's entire quarterly turnover in the AppleTV department (slight exaggerationthere  - but Android is currently a loss for Google). They are competing with Exxon to be the company with highest market evaluation in the world and have both the highest brand recognition in combination with the best customer service in the industry.  They have shipped over 750 million devices running iOS. They rake in over 75% of all revenue in the tablet market, and for high end laptops it is closer to 80%

Symptomatic the national broadcasting corporation here were criticized for not making a Windows Phone app for streaming of their live broadcasts. They said at between 0.6 and 1.1% visitors with the device on their website, it was not worth it at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:


 as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market.

As SLGo has proven, you can have super high performance graphics without a gaming rig at all.

About the Surface Pro... it is a crippled Windows notebook with hardly any battery life and graphics performance. Even the 2010 MacBook Air had better performance. But more important, it sells in the in hundreds of thousands if even that per quarter. 

Microsoft sold over 12 million copies of Office for iPad the first week in marketing in comparison. Meaning in the first week of marketing 6x as many iPads had Office than Surface Pros sold ever. 
 

 

Notice how you had to compare a tablet to a laptop. What is even more hilarious, is that laptop costs 2 and a half times that tablet, and it doesn't come with a touch screen. That tablet has thousands more programs and apps that it can run. So, head to head, the Surface Pro 3 kicks the Macbook Air's ass, hands down. They should not even be compared, cause it is just embarrasing for Apple.

As I have said many times, Apple is all hype and back room deals. Today, a good portion of Apple's sales are to government schools and colleges. They allow students to pay for a Macbook using government loans for tuition. 2 years ago, I fought with my sister about her opting in on that program. She was going into graphic arts and would not have been able to even afford a Macbook without that government loan. Today, she sees exactly what I was saying, and now she has an extra 2 or 3 grand to pay back because of it. Hey, tho, her instructor told her she had to get a Mac.

Like I pointed out in another comment, even with all this government help, Apple still only makes up a small subset of the market, and even today, it's not a given that a developer will even consider Apple users.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

Fact is that Apple has close to 150 billion USD in the bank, and can fit Google's entire quarterly turnover in the AppleTV department (slight exaggerationthere  - but Android is currently a loss for Google). They are competing with Exxon to be the company with highest market evaluation in the world and have both the highest brand recognition in combination with the best customer service in the industry.  They have shipped over 750 million devices running iOS. They rake in over 75% of all revenue in the tablet market, and for high end laptops it is closer to 80%

Symptomatic the national broadcasting corporation here were criticized for not making a Windows Phone app for streaming of their live broadcasts. They said at between 0.6 and 1.1% visitors with the device on their website, it was not worth it at all. 

 

And how does Apple do this? They do this by hyping their products by spending ridiculous money on advertising, and by pricing that product 2 and a half times more than an equivalent pc. This is also why they immediately started to use government to get their products in people hands, as those people would never have gotten them without government money. So, basically, Apple created a system where by the public pays Apple for other people to own and use their products. You end all those programs, and Apple is bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MacBook Air IS a laptop and not a tablet, and was introduced in 2008. :-) – (you must be mixing with iPad Air)

If school and government contracts should disqualify Apple, I guess Microsoft should be banned, cause they have NO such contracts?

Any developer who not even concider Apple in the mobile market is not worth calling a developer. iOS developers have 6x the revenue of Andriod developers for the exact same apps, or even app category.  Windows phone developers are probably happy if paid in DogeCoin, haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


Gavin Hird wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts.

Fact is that Apple has close to 150 billion USD in the bank, and can fit Google's entire quarterly turnover in the AppleTV department (slight exaggerationthere  - but Android is currently a loss for Google). They are competing with Exxon to be the company with highest market evaluation in the world and have both the highest brand recognition in combination with the best customer service in the industry.  They have shipped over 750 million devices running iOS. They rake in over 75% of all revenue in the tablet market, and for high end laptops it is closer to 80%

Symptomatic the national broadcasting corporation here were criticized for not making a Windows Phone app for streaming of their live broadcasts. They said at between 0.6 and 1.1% visitors with the device on their website, it was not worth it at all. 

 

And how does Apple do this? They do this by hyping their products by
spending ridiculous money on advertising
, and by
pricing that product 2 and a half times more than an equivalent pc
. This is also why they immediately started to use government to get their products in people hands, as those people would never have gotten them without government money. So, basically, Apple created a system where by the public pays Apple for other people to own and use their products.
You end all those programs, and Apple is bankrupt.

Regarding ad spending, Apple's competitors vastly outspend it...

http://qz.com/103266/google-is-about-to-spend-half-of-apples-annual-marketing-budget-promoting-a-single-phone/

http://bgr.com/2013/11/01/microsoft-marketing-budget-2-5-billion-dollars/

http://www.dailytech.com/Samsung+Breaks+the+Bank+w+14B+in+Advertising+But+is+it+Trying+Too+Hard/article33846.htm

http://bgr.com/2013/04/11/samsung-advertising-spend-analysis-430831/

 

Regarding product pricing for Surface Pro 3 and MacBook Air...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2458320,00.asp

You can certainly find less expensive non Apple computers, but they're generally not similarly spec'd. Apple's "Tax" is more myth than reality, as shown above. And it can be difficult to find a direct comparison, as Apple's computers are more than just the collection of parts. They put significant effort and expense into the sort of industrial design you'd expect from aspirational brands. That is not valueless.

I am sometimes vexed by the excessive value people place on aspirational brands, including Apple, but the recent test drive I took in a BMW convinced me that such brands are not all hype. I won't be buying a BMW anytime soon, but it was a truly lovely car.

 

Regarding Apple's dependence on the education market...

Apple's 2013 total revenue was $171 Billion. Of that, less than $4 Billion came from the education market (I don't have ed revenue for the full year, but if the best quarter topped $1Billion for the first time, the year total can't be much above $4Billion). I don't think Apple would go bankrupt on losing 2.4% of revenue.

 

I'm an evidence based thinker, and look forward to evidence to support your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1967 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...