| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | | title = New Products | | | title = New Products |
| | | image = new products.png | | | image = new products.png |
| − | | titletext = If you ever hear "Wait, is that Kim Dotcom's new project? I'm really excited about it and already signed up, although I'm a little nervous about whether everyone should hand over control of their medical...", it's time to dig a bunker in your backyard. | + | | titletext = If you ever hear "Wait, is that Kim Dotcom's new project? I'm really excited about it and already signed up, although I'm a little nervous about whether everyone should hand over control of their medical...", it's time to dig a bunker in your backyard. |
| | }} | | }} |
| − | ==Explanation==
| |
| − | This comic points out an apparent paradox in product performance: Many products that are [https://www.google.com/search?q=No+wireless+Less+space+than+a+nomad+Lame criticized by techies when first announced] go on to great success, and many that are heavily hyped are total flops. The product in question may be a reference to the {{w|Apple Watch}}, which was announced around the time of this comic's release.
| |
| | | | |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| + | == Explanation == |
| − | ! If they say...
| |
| − | ! It means...
| |
| − | ! Explanation
| |
| − | ! Example
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |"It doesn't do anything new"
| |
| − | |rowspan="2"|The product will be a gigantic success.
| |
| − | |A product that "doesn't do anything new" may still be successful for a variety of reasons. It may in fact do something new that the engineers and programmers are overlooking, or it may simply be a better presentation of an older idea that so far hasn't caught on among the general public. This latter category is the completion of the life-cycle mentioned later in the comic, those products whose "ideas will show up in something successful."
| |
| − | |{{w|iPod}}, {{w|iPad}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |"Why would anyone want that?"
| |
| − | |If engineers and programmers can't figure out why anyone would want a product, it may be because the applications are highly avant-garde or niche (though that could make it hard for the product to be a mass success). Alternatively, engineers and programmers themselves often don't share the tastes and priorities of non-technical people, and are therefore unable to understand and accurately assess the appeal that a product will have to the masses.
| |
| − | |{{w|Twitter}}, {{w|MacBook Air}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |"Really exciting"
| |
| − | |rowspan="2"|The product will be a flop. Years later, its ideas will show up in something successful.
| |
| − | |rowspan="2"|Products that are "really exciting" to engineers and programmers, so much so that they have already pre-ordered them, may fail to succeed for various reasons, such as:
| |
| − | *The product is excellent, but costs too much for mass audiences.
| |
| − | *The product has an unintuitive interface or strange aesthetics, which techies are willing to "live with", but regular people are not.
| |
| − | *The product has bad marketing; the masses never "get" how good the product is.
| |
| − | *The product turns out to be "nerd bait" or {{w|vaporware}}, offering visionary ideas that aren't actually feasible yet.
| |
| − | When a later product is based on the same ideas, but without the mistakes, it will be worth billions. Then the techies will say "it doesn't do anything new".
| |
| − | |{{w|NeXT}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |"I've already preorded one"
| |
| − | |[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/how-one-kickstarter-project-squandered-3-5-million/ myIDkey]
| |
| − | {{w|Ubuntu Edge}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |"Wait, are you talking about <unfamiliar person's name>'s new project?"
| |
| − | |The product could be a scam and may result in arrests or lawsuits.
| |
| − | |If a product's developer's name is well-known among engineers and programmers, but not among the general public, that's usually not a good sign. Quite likely, the developer is someone who goes a step further than those in the previous category, not just announcing something cool and exciting they can't follow through on, but doing so ''knowing'' that they can't follow through yet still taking people's money. The state may press criminal charges against them (for fraud or such), or the angry investors may sue to get their money back.
| |
| − | |{{w|Shawn Fanning}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |"I would never put <company> in charge of managing my <whatever>"
| |
| − | |Within five years, they will.
| |
| − | |If engineers' and programmers' only objection is that they don't like the company behind the product, that's basically a tacit admission that there's nothing else wrong with it. For the average consumer, the perks of a groundbreaking new product outweigh whatever problems they may have with the company behind it. This category also relates to the numerous privacy concerns raised about the devices and software of certain companies, and the way people tend to get riled up about these issues and then forget about them once it becomes too inconvenient. For instance, in the aftermath of Facebook releasing its Messenger app, it was not uncommon to hear people say "I would never put Facebook in charge of managing my network connectivity/phone calls/camera". However, a few months later and barely anyone was complaining anymore, and within another year or so even the most hardline of privacy advocates gave in.
| |
| − | |[https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+OR+google+OR+microsoft+OR+amazon+OR+facebook+"is+evil" take your pick]
| |
| − | |}
| |
| | | | |
| − | The title text imagines a product that fits into the second, third and fourth categories:
| + | {{incomplete|First draft.}} |
| − | * "Wait, is that Kim Dotcom's new project?" — third category
| |
| − | * "I'm really excited about it and already signed up." — both options from the second category
| |
| − | * "Although I'm a little nervous about whether everyone should hand over control of their medical..." — fourth category
| |
| | | | |
| − | {{w|Kim Dotcom}} is a controversial entrepreneur and [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/who-kim-dotcom-timeline-his-life-1442384 convicted fraud]. He {{w|Kim Dotcom#Personal life|changed his surname}} to "Dotcom" because of the {{w|Dot-com bubble|dot-com stock market bubble}} that made him a millionaire. He fits perfectly into the mold of someone well-known to programmers and engineers (as well as New Zealanders), but perhaps not so much to your average Joe.
| + | This comic points out an apparent paradox in product performance: Many products that are criticized when first announced go on to great success, and many that are heavily hyped are total flops. The product in question may be a reference to the Apple Watch, which was announced around the time of this comic's release. |
| | | | |
| − | Taken together, these imply that an untrustworthy and potentially malicious company has an exciting new idea that may eventually come out in successful form, gains control of a large amount of medical information, but ultimately result in lawsuits not just from investors but from misled consumers (category 3). Because the initial release will be a flop (category 2), there is some time to prepare before the successful use of this idea becomes a reality (also category 2), at which point that or some other company will gain control of a large amount of people's medical something (category 4). Once this happens you could expect dramatic repercussions; this is why the title text suggests to dig a bunker while there is still time.
| + | #*A product that "doesn't do anything new" may still be successful for a variety of reasons. It may in fact do something new that the engineers and programmers are overlooking, or it may simply be a better presentation of an older idea. This latter category is the completion of the life-cycle mentioned later in the comic, those products whose "ideas will show up in something successful." |
| | + | #*If engineers and programmers can't figure out why anyone would want a product, that may actually be because the applications are highly avant-garde or niche. |
| | + | #*Engineers and programmers themselves may be in a niche that doesn't share the tastes and priorities of non-technical people, and are therefore unable to understand and accurately assess the appeal that a product will have to the masses. |
| | + | # Products that are "really exciting" to engineers and programmers, so much so that they have already pre-ordered them, may fail to succeed for two reasons. |
| | + | #*The product could turn out to be "nerd bait," so to speak. The developers promise a cool, groundbreaking new gadget or service, and people get so excited by the idea that they ignore whether or not it's actually feasible. When the developers can't follow through, unsurprisingly, the product flops. The ideas that it proposed, which were so intriguing to the programmers and the developers, will be worth billions once someone can figure out how to realize them. |
| | + | #*Alternately, the product could have the features advertised, but other issues can interfere with the success of the product, which engineers prioritize lower than such features in their assessment of a product's quality or utility. These may include bad marketing (the masses don't hear about or "get" how good the product is), an unintuitive design or implementation (which more technical people may be able to "live with", but the general population may not be able or willing), or something as simple as a lack of aesthetics (which decreases appeal for use by owners and may temper the fervor which might otherwise encourage further sales). |
| | + | # If a product's developer's name is well-known among engineers and programmers, but not among the general public, that's usually not a good sign. Quite likely, the developer is someone who goes a step farther than those in the previous category, not just announcing something cool and exciting they can't follow through on, but doing so ''knowing'' that they can't follow through, and take people's money anyways. The state may press criminal charges against them (for fraud or such), or the angry investors may sue to get their money back. |
| | + | # If engineers' and programmers' only objection is that they don't like the company behind the product, that's basically a tacit admission that there's nothing else wrong with it. For the average consumer, the perks of a groundbreaking new product outweigh whatever problems people may have with the company behind it. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Transcript==
| + | The title text imagines a product that fits into the second, third, and fourth categories. ({{w|Kim Dotcom}} is a controversial entrepreneur and convicted criminal, who fits the mold of someone well-known to programmers and engineers, but perhaps not so much to your average Joe.) According to this chart, such a product would a) flop, b) turn out to be a scam, and c) somehow still wind up in control of whatever it wants to control. This does not sound good, and may even suggest the rise of some sort of malicious AI (how else would a product take control of your medical records despite having been a flop?). Thus the suggestion to dig a bunker. |
| − | :'''Predicting the success or failure of a new product'''
| |
| − | :based on what engineers and programmers are saying about it
| |
| | | | |
| − | :[A two-column table illustrating this. The headings are actually standing above the table.]
| + | == Transcript == |
| − | :{| class="wikitable alternance"
| |
| − | ! If they say...
| |
| − | ! It means...
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | "It doesn't do anything new"
| |
| − | |rowspan="2"|The product will be<br>
| |
| − | a gigantic success.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | "Why would anyone want that?"
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | "Really exciting"
| |
| − | |rowspan="2"| The product will be a flop.<br>
| |
| − | Years later, its ideas will<br>
| |
| − | show up in something successful.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |"I've already preorded one"
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | "Wait, are you talking about<br>
| |
| − | <unfamiliar person's name>'s<br>
| |
| − | new project?"
| |
| − | | The product could be<br>
| |
| − | a scam and may result<br>
| |
| − | in arrests or lawsuits.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | "I would never put<br>
| |
| − | <company> in charge of<br>
| |
| − | managing my <whatever>."
| |
| − | | Within five years, they will.
| |
| − | |}
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Trivia== | + | :Predicting the success or failure of a new product |
| − | *There is a spelling mistake in the comic: "preorded" should have been "preordered". | + | :Based on what engineers and programmers are saying about it |
| | + | :[A two-column table illustrating this. The words "if they say..." and "it means..." are the headers to the two columns; below, they are reprinted before the transciption of each row, for clarity's sake.] |
| | + | ::If they say... |
| | + | :::"It doesn't do anything new" |
| | + | :::"Why would anyone want that?" |
| | + | ::It means... |
| | + | :::The product will be a gigantic success. |
| | + | ::If they say... |
| | + | :::"Really exciting" |
| | + | :::"I've already preordered one" |
| | + | ::It means... |
| | + | :::The product will be a flop. Years later, its ideas will show up in something successful. |
| | + | ::If they say... |
| | + | :::"Wait, are you talking about <unfamiliar person's name>'s new project?" |
| | + | ::It means... |
| | + | :::The product could be a scam and may result in arrests or lawsuits. |
| | + | ::If they say... |
| | + | :::"I would never put <company> in charge of managing my <whatever>" |
| | + | ::It means... |
| | + | :::Within five years, they will. |
| | + | |
| | + | == Trivia == |
| | + | * There is a typo on the first upload. "Preorded" should be "preordered". |
| | | | |
| | {{comic discussion}} | | {{comic discussion}} |
| − | [[Category:Charts]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Programming]]
| |
