|
You did in fact say it, go read through your previous posts, thank you. Keep to design ? the original conversation was the name. You consitantly keep changing the subject when you are not able to back up for statements when being called out. Plain and simple. I`ve already answered your question previously but I will again post it in the hopes that it might sink in. Design changes due to the creativity of the company. It may have been important in previous generations of electronics but companies like Apple, Samsung, etc have proven that you do not have to change the design of the product (drastically) if you can market and thoroughly explain to the consumer the difference between iterations. Nintendo was on the right track with this coming off the success of the Wii however they not only poorly marketed the Wii U and were not able to provide a clear understanding that Nintendo has a new console (to the general public) but the also gave it a name that confused people into believe it was an add on. The design of the electronic is irrelevant if the functions of it provide value to the consumer. The PS4 could have been bulky and ugly like the Xbox One but the majority would have still purchased it as Sony communicated efficiently the value of it`s product. They also could have followed Nintendo`s path and made a few minor changes and the result still would have been the same.
|
That's the first point I mentionned on my first post, I keep on the subject:
"There are many ways to make the customer understand you've got a new product.
A new design : failed
[etc.]
Don't blame the name.
I really can't believe you can have 120 100 millions of happy customers, 20 of them fans of the brand, have a new product good enough for them, and you don't sell well because of the name. "
So, here we are, you had to go in a lot of directions again, the quality of design (this one is a great trick, but you already used it twice), example based on a very different device that don't have room for large design changes like a smartphone, explaining it's a thing of the past (ignoring PS4 and XBone)... Then marketing, value for consumer, etc. and sure it does all matter a lot, but:
You didn't answer why MS and Sony spent money and time to come with a new design for their consoles because... you know you can't. They don't live in a magical world, they know the power of marketing, they explain concepts (social, kinect) and all, but they still have a new design, like every single console but the Wii U. You are done, and I've got my point.
We could now switch to the next point, and point by point, explain how much of a failure is the Wii U as a Wii 2, in term of value, marketing (this, you agree on, but I think it's not marketable), how it throws away the idea of moving and accessibility, the weak concept of a tablet, launch games (giving what wii sport was for the wii). And, overall that the Wii U is a failure as a new product and as a Wii 2, and that's the reason why it would not sell twice as much by a better name and less confusion. But here, I feel tired. I think I've got my point about design, that's good enough for me. Or... do you think you can talk again about smartphone design, and design quality, and all ? I will read it.
|
account, or you really don't have the slightest bit of understanding in how marketing a product works and should refrain from further commenting as your responses have literally lower the IQ of whoever attempts to read your nonsense. You crioticized Michael Patcher, yet you make the guy look like a genius. 
