zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. blh+(OP)[view] [source] 2019-12-06 20:21:19
I agree that $2300 is a steep price for an experiment but I'm not sure you would want to base your price on the cost of production - why is that any better than any other arbitrary price?
replies(1): >>cridde+A
2. cridde+A[view] [source] 2019-12-06 20:24:54
>>blh+(OP)
Why not follow the model used by consoles and cell phones? Sell the hardware at a loss and take a 30% cut of software sales.
replies(2): >>pvaran+F1 >>munk-a+K1
◧◩
3. pvaran+F1[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-12-06 20:32:36
>>cridde+A
That won't work here, nobody would buy software for this thing because it's really underwhelming.
replies(2): >>cridde+b4 >>redism+wn
◧◩
4. munk-a+K1[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-12-06 20:33:01
>>cridde+A
This would be really sensible especially giving the funding they've been floated - that said maybe their debtors are coming home to roost and they've been given pressure to avoid setting any more money on fire.
◧◩◪
5. cridde+b4[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-12-06 20:49:52
>>pvaran+F1
Doesn't that depend on how big of a loss they are willing to take? Say they started selling to developers for $1000 with the promise that the price to consumers would be $99 six months from now. I think that would ignite a lot of development.
◧◩◪
6. redism+wn[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-12-06 23:20:16
>>pvaran+F1
That's like launching a game console with no games on launch day then. Even worse of a blunder from Magic Leap.
[go to top]