The highest insult I could do to you is stupid. Stupid answer, this is stupid, you are stupid at most. That's bad, my bad, still it's pretty common. But talking about disability, I've never seen that, it's horrible !

Anyway, you have hard time to understand the concept of proof. You prove there is a large variety of designs, not that there is no constraints in design. The constraints I talked about are safety, cost, consumption, design cost, and public conservatism. That constraints are the reason why the car you show are not for sale, private car designs, or not mainstream. Again, my question to a car designer : "Do you have any constraint on your car design ?". "No, I don't have a single one, I can design it in the shape of shit, and build it with dust, and forget that most people want 4 seats and that's fine". You can't fail to understand your mistake, come on ! You can show pictures of 5 different animals, gravity is still there. Allo ?

And it certainly do not change the fact that the Wii U wouldn't have had benefit for a better logo, drop the cheap plastic box to sell a more expensive device, and make a new design that put more emphasis on the new console (because you are not selling an accessory). And that's pretty clear.

Last, about "destroy". Your 2nd post, first sentance: "New Design: Apple has proven that is irrelevant". You already were like "I've destroyed you argument". 

You've attempted to label my responses as stupid without having a factual argument to prove your assertion. I compared your analysis in the same category as someone who is disabled. That's not horrioble, it is blunt.

You claim I have a hard time understanding concepts and designs by giving your own opinions of my ideas instead of backing it up with facts. All I have done is provided you with facts to which "I" have had to deal with your ignorance each time after.My statement provided the design of cars. Did I limit it to those that travel roads or highways? NO. So therefore you are the ass for assuming without asking. Cars, vehicles do not have constraints. The majority follow North American concepts, not Asian. You bring up the concept of animals while ignoring the fact that they are living beings. I am trhying to be nice by not disecting each incorrect statement but your pushing me topwards the edge on this one.

Your reasonng is idiotic if you do not think that the console sold as Wii 2 would not have garnered higher sales than Wii U. I''ll provide the broken record response and advise you to read the articles.

As others have said, if the Wii U had a name that clearly established it as a brand new console instead of yet another Wii peripheral, awareness of the system would have been much higher. I don't think sales would be through the roof, but they certainly wouldn't be any worse.

I read it, they state the product to be late, and confusion problems, including, but not exclusive (marketing, bad explanations, sellers awarness) to the name. No link you provide is stupid enough to say wii 2 would have sold twice as much and would be currently ahead of the race. They don't really talk about the product quality either, so the links state  problems (including the name), but don't put in balance. They are not really about telling all of sudden "and design  matters", but are not telling either "the product is good, it's not the problem", even if Iwata is strongly implying that (but he doesn't even talk about the name).

Anyway, your point is that mainstream car (who have to be on the road) have repetitive design, but it's not because of constraints. Proof is that car that does not have the constraint to be on road have a large variety of form. That's my point ! You remove this constraint, and you have a lot more designs. Think again. It's getting funny, explain again ?

Your idea of proof is totally wrong, I tell you. It's not even a false syllogism, it's more something like "If A doesn't do B and is successful, then A proves B is insignificant in other case". Apple don't change the design, then Apple proves changing the design is insignificant, including for the wii U.  Then you think if you add one more A, like cars, you have one more proof. You add lots of A, simple A, pictures of A, you have so many proofs and you fail to understand, you get pissed of. But the logical connection you imply is wrong. For example the following sentence is still not a proof, but would be about as strong and more than enough for me: "Steve Jobs and multiple designers/companies said design changes are irrelevant, here are the links". You have a lot of other wrong proof system, I could explain it if you want, I can tell you I studied logic and use it quite a lot. That's what I labelled as stupid, but I really thought you did it on purpose. Try to make other sentences based on "If A doesn't do B, then A proves B is insignificant in other case". You'll see, you can prove about anything.

Your point about living beings is not explained, so I will not make assumptions. I'm just telling a great variety doesn't imply the absence of constraint, which makes sense. Also, "asian concept" (I'm french by the way, living in Tokyo), no clue what you try to imply, or if it's related. I hope it's not something like "asian concept of lively things", because you would be making 3 mistakes with 1 sentence.

I'm not even sure denigrate someone by asking if is disabled is legal in my country. I think it's quite shocking both in Japan and France.

Do you think if George Bush Jr had a different name than George Bush Sr that people wouldn't have been so confused when voting for president?

Yes, you've read, you've read, you've read but you clearly have a lack of understanding. Obviously the language barried is seeming to get in the way for you because you clearly cannot comprehend English nor formulate a sentence that even remotely makes sense. Maybe you should refrain from debating in a language you clearly are confused with. The links were articles pointing out the mass consumer confusion. Not sales based articles. Anyone who is not a biased fanboy can easily understand that the name alone confused the masses and resulted in a lack of sales (On top of marketing). 11-12 Million is not a significant amount for a console released after 18 months. 

It's not your fucking point, you are making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your point was that cars have restraints. You can't change your argument midway through and then claim that you meant something else. Your nonsensical rants are really embarassing to even engage you in. 

My proof is that there is a common trend that amongst the MAJORITY of companies where previous iterations in hardware, electronics and other consumer products are not changing from the previous generation. Apple does change the design, with minor tweaks, other companies I have provided do the same thing. Your absurd to beleive that the Wii U only having a minor changes in hardware (simlar shape but larger size) would be considered a reason as to why it is failing. That is ridiculous and you really need to think before writing. It is quite clear you have not studied logic as it seems you have a difficult time applying it in any of your responses. You definitelty do not have even a remote understanding of Western markets and how the behaviours of the general cosumer. I was also drunk when I wrote my previous response and I still managed to provide a more sound argument than anything you have posted in this thread.

Yes living beings, as I stated you brought up animals whichcould not be remotelty applied to this debate and I pointed out the stupidity in it. None of what you stated makes sesne. I am implying that North America does not have the constraints of Japna (and france as well) as have wide roads. I'm not sure how that managed to confuse you. If you are using google translate to read and write responses I suggest you refrain from it.

I don't know what reality you live in but asking someone if they have a disability is not illegal, in any country for that matter. It wasn't meant to be rude either. It's obvious now it's a language barrier but the responses you have given truly made me question whether or not you have some sort of disability.

Your "proof is that there is a common trend that amongst the MAJORITY of companies where previous iterations in hardware, electronics and other consumer products are not changing from the previous generation.". Again, you are mistaking what is a proof. To prove it, you have to do a few things. First, prove that's a majority. Not one or two examples, majority, I want a link. Then, you have to prove that what apply to this majority of hardwares apply to consoles, which, I think, is impossible to prove (or to prove false). Or prove that is a trend (a graph), and why this trend now applies to consoles.

It's a fact but not a proof that I can't see this trend in consoles. Any single console had a new design, including the Wii and for current generation 2 out of 3 have a new design, and the one that don't have is messed up with name, marketing, as you (and I) believe. I can prove that Sony and MS believe in a new design because they spent money on that. And I can tell a difference is that a lot of other hardware have a lot quicker incrementations than console, and doesn't care with naming either.

About proof, I would like to make it clear. Do you believe this to be true: "if A doesn't do B, then A proves B is insignificant in other case". It's true or false. If you believe in that, any sentence I could build with any A and B would be a proof. And I will provide proof for absurd thing. If you don't believe it's a proof, then you didn't provide a proof. That's pretty simple.

And I can provide you an example of proof. Proof is a rare thing, so take note. You keep saying that car design does not obey to constraints. This is a constraint I talked about, that any car manufacturer must follow and conform to in the USA : the "FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS". By this regulation, I think at least one of the picture you showed is not even a car. Is there any English misunderstanding here ? Explain where.

You are telling I don't understand English 4 or 5 times. I don't think you believe in it. I don't believe in it, because I've proven track of work in English. I have been told multiple time I'm fluent, which is different from a native level I can't claim. I think it's cheap if you keep lying on that.
But it's not a lie I do think you don't understand logic at a very basic level, and that's the problem we are facing. Your sentence I quoted above is written in very simple English (perhaps to help me), I can't fail to understand it. So I'm telling you, and that's an opinion not a misunderstanding, that it's wrong. It would be very cheap to talk about communication issues when I understand but disapprove.

Last, my point is again not to deny Nintendo messed with the name and communication, but that a different name would not sale higher for this product. I don't think the design alone would change anything, it's the first point of a long list of things that would have helped to deliver a better and new product. We keep on it, because you keep on your "prove and destroy" attitude.

I have proven that it is a majority; I’ve given you numerous examples, something you’ve failed to do. You want links; here you go http://www.futureshop.ca/ , http://www.bestbuy.com/. Go look through their websites and if you have eyes you will notice the trend or as I stated the majority. I’m not sure how things work over in Japan but this is the trend in North America. Nintendo attempted to follow this trend and took the correct steps in minimally changing the design which as I stated was not wrong. Their marketing of the Wii U as a brand new console was. Anyone who puts a Wii and a Wii U together can easily come to this conclusion that they are not the same console. Its funny how you complain about me proving points (when I in fact do) yet all you have provided is an opinion and nothing to back up your argument.

You’re completely and utterly wrong. Explain why Sony chose a similar design for Vita as it did for the PSP and Nintendo for 3DS as the DS? Sony had the right idea but failed to execute as they chose a terrible name (should have been PSP2) and on top of that had no games. 3DS is nearing 45 million in sales.   Microsoft had to create a bulky design due to the giant fan in the console. Do you not think they would have cut costs as I stated earlier and designed it similar to the 360? Sony’s PS4 as many have pointed out has similar features of the PS2. Minimal changes are needed in the design of a console.

Your reasoning makes no sense and does not apply to what I’ve been stating, but nice try. Proof is non a rare thing. It is common unless coming from a debate on your side of the spectrumJ. If you would have paid attention, to what I stated about car regulations, you would have clearly noticed that I included off road vehicles. Also that does not apply to the design of a vehicle. Please try doing some proper research and read what is in your links before posting. It would do you some good!

No I firmly believe in it and anyone who was born with English as their first language can easily determine that you have an “extremely” difficult time formulating sentences in our language and should refrain from doing so.  You claim you were told this but there is no proof to this J Your sentences do not reflect correct English grammar, plain and simple and I sure as hell am not lying about it. It’s not cheap as you clearly do not understand and your responses are all over the place.

By denying this you are only fooling yourself. You are clearly not knowledgeable in the field of marketing and the psychology of the casual consumer. I’ve taken business courses in school and am aware of how the naming of a consumer good is significant and can impact a product positively/negatively. You have to understand that you are providing an opinion that is not based on fact. You do not have any firm examples to give that explain why the Wii U would not have better consumer recognition if it was named Wii 2. You do not have knowledge of North American markets and what drives sales.

I honestly think that you do not fully believe in your argument. You’re upset that you have been proven wrong and think that you will somehow fatigue me by writing paragraphs of illogical banter, well, unfortunately for you I live in Canada. I’m use to debating stubborn Frenchmen who will argue till they are blue in the face even when they know they’re wrong!

I will show how much it doesn't make sense.

1 - I tell you that you can't compare cars and console, because cars have a hell lot of constraints.
You prove it's false, because car like console have no constraints.

2 - I tell you that design of console still change because it matters to make a new product.
You prove it's false, and the reason for XBox One is to have the constraint of a big fan.

It's the same or not ? What are you talking about ? Why a fan is a constraint but not a regulation on a seat you have to comply to ?
Do you believe mainstream cars have more constraints than car in general ?

I'm telling constraints matters. And constraints on controls and screen for the psp vista limits design make it similar even to the game gear. That's what I'm also telling about the iphone.

You give your background, I'm programmer and studied logic and mathematics. You are absolutely outside the scientific notion of proof, and outside logic. You don't understand the concept. Again, do you believe in "if A doesn't do B, then A proves B is insignificant in other case" ? That's plain logic.

Proof is hard to make outside of science, most writers would not assume they can. If someone could prove "new design are irrelevant", there would not be a single new design. There are new designs. How can you really believe you can prove anything ?

About English, I will not provide personal information for proof. By the way, if I can't understand and can't write English that makes sense, what are you answering to ? You can't even read English written by americans ? Any consultation of the link I provided would make you understand it put constraints on design. Can you read it ?

What are you talking about marketing ? You seem to believe it's a self-explanatory silver bullet. Why would companies spend on product development if it was ? Same shit again with a superb marketing, does it work ? Can you blame the product for a bad marketing ?

Here is a little lesson for you guys. Wii name stands for people coming over and playing together. You know Wii as in WE, we are all playing together. Wii U is simple you keep the Wii in its name because you still want the Wii concept but you are adding a game pad which makes U come in. U also can play games by yourself. So you have a choice now pretty much common sense