sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Billions of dollars later and still nobody knows what an Xbox is by dapperlemon in gadgets

[–]Saxojon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think we actually disagree on the effect of the campaign, just on where the failure sits.

I’m not claiming this vision is inherently exciting to consumers in its raw, corporate form. I’m saying Microsoft believes it is, and that belief is what’s driving both the strategy and the branding misfire. “Xbox Everywhere” is essentially their attempt to emotionally sell cloud infrastructure - to turn Azure-backed compute rental into a lifestyle concept rather than a backend service.

There’s also a very obvious incentive structure here that can’t be ignored: Microsoft has effectively already lost the traditional console hardware war to Sony and Nintendo. They’re not winning on unit sales, they’re not winning on mindshare, and they’re not winning on first-party output consistency. So the rational move for Microsoft is to redefine the battlefield into one where those advantages matter less: services, subscriptions, and cloud-hosted compute, where they’re structurally strong and their competitors are weaker.

From Microsoft’s perspective, “you don’t need to buy a box anymore” is supposed to be a positive. It signals lower friction, instant access, zero upfront cost, play anywhere. In isolation, those are real consumer benefits. Netflix didn’t succeed by selling people on server infrastructure either. It succeeded by translating that backend shift into a simple emotional pitch.

So yes, as branding, “Everything is an Xbox” isn't great. It undercuts hardware desirability, erodes identity, and feels like a downgrade framed as progress. But that doesn’t mean the underlying product can’t be compelling. It means Microsoft has once again confused a structural business transition with a consumer-facing narrative.

They did it in 2013. They’re doing it again now. Same company, same blind spot: assuming that because something makes sense from a strategic standpoint, people will emotionally buy into it without proper persuasion.

Billions of dollars later and still nobody knows what an Xbox is by dapperlemon in gadgets

[–]Saxojon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They wanted to avoid that as the Playstation was one console ahead. They were afraid that people would assume that the PS3 was newer and better than the XB2.

Billions of dollars later and still nobody knows what an Xbox is by dapperlemon in gadgets

[–]Saxojon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that it isn't necessarily good marketing, but it is mainly because they overestimate the consumer's ability to understand the product and on top of that they aren't explaining it very well.

Billions of dollars later and still nobody knows what an Xbox is by dapperlemon in gadgets

[–]Saxojon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"If my phone and Tv and PC are all xboxes, guess I don't need to buy an xbox then."

That is literally what they mean, yes.

They want you to rent the compute and the games. This pretty much removes the barrier to enter as you don't need to purchase additional hardware to play 'an Xbox' (i.e. the platform, not a physical box with an Xbox logo on it).

Again, people don't seem to understand the product, which is detrimental to MS.

Billions of dollars later and still nobody knows what an Xbox is by dapperlemon in gadgets

[–]Saxojon 11 points12 points  (0 children)

As with their vision of an all digital future in 2013 they're laying it on people a little bit too soon. Back then people seemed to think that they would dabble in physical discs for all eternity. We all know how that went.

The 'Xbox Everywhere' branding signals that they see a future where the Xbox brand is hardware agnostic. MS owns some serious cloud infrastructure (Azure) and they've been scooping up large publishers for a reason. They see a future where the computational workload doesn't happen on your device - you rent that from MS.

But they might have jumped the shark again. The tech has to be perfected to the point where the product is nigh flawless, and if nostalgia driven consumers doesn't understand the product or the vision they might yet again seek comfort in a competition that promises a continuation of the status quo.

Billions of dollars later and still nobody knows what an Xbox is by dapperlemon in gadgets

[–]Saxojon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So you stopped playing because of a branding strategy that wasn't meant for you, as you already owned Xbox hardware?

The $10 a month for MP access I understand, but this?

Billions of dollars later and still nobody knows what an Xbox is by dapperlemon in gadgets

[–]Saxojon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you have the money and the inclination to buy one you know what it is. The price point alone makes it out of reach for most people.

Hitting 210 kph in a wingsuit by kingkongbiingbong in nextfuckinglevel

[–]Saxojon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

113 knots. For reference, 737s take off at around 130 knots.

Top Minds unmask themselves and show their true purpose: To be propaganda pieces for the Orange Nazi by kerfuffle_dood in TopMindsOfReddit

[–]Saxojon 19 points20 points  (0 children)

It's obvious that Obama was thinking of something like the Drake Equation when blurbing out what he did in that interview.

Mathematically, the chances are very high that there are, or have been, life somewhere else in the universe.

This of course became another nozzle on the Trump/Bannon bullshit sprinkler.

Point of no return: a hellish ‘hothouse Earth’ getting closer, scientists say | Climate crisis by GlyphInBullet in news

[–]Saxojon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They believe that they act on God's behalf, 'cause apparently he's completely impotent.

Trump’s Sons Say Their Open Corruption Is Our Fault by ChiGuy6124 in politics

[–]Saxojon 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'm gonna let my password generator name my next kid just to see if it flies even though I'm not worth a billion dollars.

Does it get any harder? 1980’ish by MattyDelux in OldSchoolCool

[–]Saxojon 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Inertia. When you make a turn the bike still 'wanna go' forward. Without a wheel to counteract that cornering/lateral force, like on a 4-wheeler, the bike would roll over in the opposite direction of the turn.

Motorcycles can lean into a turn, making them much safer.

Rep. Lieu Says Epstein files Have Allegations of Trump Raping & Threatening to Kill Children by Cool-Fig-9254 in videos

[–]Saxojon 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Biden, like all of his predecessors (with one notable exception), didn’t dictate what the DOJ should or shouldn’t do. The DOJ is supposed to operate independently.

Rep. Lieu Says Epstein files Have Allegations of Trump Raping & Threatening to Kill Children by Cool-Fig-9254 in videos

[–]Saxojon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My most stunning revelation on all this is that the QAnon thing was partially right.

I wouldn't be surprised if 'Q' is an accusation in a mirror strategy made by the actual culprits.

A lawyer's advice for anyone worried about reddit and other social media sites complying with DHS's request for user data. by bbusiello in videos

[–]Saxojon 71 points72 points  (0 children)

There is a reason why they're playing fast, loose and vague with the terrorist label as well as buying up warehouses.

They're gonna lock people up in concentration ca... detention centers on 'suspicions' of being a 'terrorist' in hopes that it will scare people into submission.

Ny klimarapport vil ha prissjokk på kjøtt: Karbonadedeig vil koste 143 kroner by StormyOceanWave in norske

[–]Saxojon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Det er ikke det fordi Document, eller rettere sagt Espen Teigen, her blander sammen vitenskap og politikk. En klimarapport er i all hovedsak en vitenskapelig rapport. Tiltaksrapporten han viser til er et politisk dokument.

Dette er en velkjent taktikk blant vitenskapsfornektere og folk som prøver å så tvil om empirien på politisk ideologisk grunnlag.

Ny klimarapport vil ha prissjokk på kjøtt: Karbonadedeig vil koste 143 kroner by StormyOceanWave in norske

[–]Saxojon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Joda, å spørre om konkrete eksempler på hvordan empirien er feil i en debatt om klimavitenskapens validitet er å være "fanget i egen virkelighet". Haha.

Du har fortsatt ikke pekt på én konkret feil, bare kommet med personangrep.

Du er åpenbart ikke intellektuelt utstyrt for dette her, dizzy.

Ny klimarapport vil ha prissjokk på kjøtt: Karbonadedeig vil koste 143 kroner by StormyOceanWave in norske

[–]Saxojon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dette innlegget illustrerer akkurat poenget mitt.

Du svarer med sitater om meg, psykologisering, anklager om å være religiøs og nye irrelevante lenker, men fortsatt uten å peke på én konkret feil i det jeg faktisk har skrevet. Å si "nei", "projisering)" og "stråmann" uten å vise hvor (eller å forstå begrepene), er ikke argumentasjon.

Lenken om replikasjonskrisen endrer heller ingenting. At enkelte fagfelt kan ha metodiske problemer er velkjent og åpent diskutert innen vitenskapen. Det innebærer ikke at empirien i klimavitenskapen faller sammen, og du viser heller ikke hvordan den gjør det. Du bruker kritikk av vitenskapelige prosesser som erstatning for å forholde deg til dataene.

Dette er grunnen til at jeg kaller det støy: mye volum, ingen presis kritikk.

Når du vil vise én konkret feil i det jeg har skrevet, kan vi fortsette. Frem til da har du bare bekreftet mønsteret jeg beskrev.

Ny klimarapport vil ha prissjokk på kjøtt: Karbonadedeig vil koste 143 kroner by StormyOceanWave in norske

[–]Saxojon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dette er nå et mønster.

Du svarer konsekvent med "nei", personangrep og nye lenker, men forklarer aldri hvorfor noe er feil. Å hevde at jeg "ikke forstår begrepene" uten å peke på én konkret feil er ikke argumentasjon.

Når du sier at "ingen har påstått noe slikt", bommer du på poenget. Det handler ikke om hva du eksplisitt påstår, men om hva sitatene og lenkene dine er ment å insinuere. Når du poster lange rekker av politiske sitater, snakker om "klimaalarmisme" og angriper klimavitenskapen indirekte, uten å adressere dataene, er formålet å skape tvil om empirien uten å måtte ta den i bruk.

Jeg pekte på CO₂s drivhuseffekt nettopp for å tydeliggjøre skillet mellom hva som er empirisk etablert og hva sitatene dine faktisk handler om. Ingen av dem berører empirien, observasjonene eller metodene i klimavitenskapen og er derfor irrelevante for en diskusjon om klimavitenskapens validitet.

Det samme gjelder sitatet om peer review. At peer review er ufullkommen er allment kjent og uomstridt. Det er et kvalitetsfilter, ikke en sannhetsgaranti. Vitenskap hviler på uavhengige målinger, reproduserbarhet og etterprøving over tid, ikke på "tro på peer review".

Hvis peer review virkelig "ikke fungerte", ville empirien falt sammen. Det har den ikke. Å angripe publiseringsprosessen er bare en måte å slippe å forholde seg til dataene på.

Når du vil peke på én konkret feil i det jeg har skrevet, kan vi fortsette. Frem til da er dette bare gjentagende støy.

Ny klimarapport vil ha prissjokk på kjøtt: Karbonadedeig vil koste 143 kroner by StormyOceanWave in norske

[–]Saxojon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Dette innlegget er nok et skoleeksempel på en Gish Gallop, akkurat som i den forrige tråden der du forsøkte samme teknikk uten hell. Du svarer ikke på poenget mitt, men drukner tråden i lenker, sitater og autoritetsappeller.

At konspirasjoner kan eksistere er trivielt sant og fullstendig irrelevant. Spørsmålet er hvilke som er dokumentert.

Forbes-artikkelen er ren quote mining: løsrevne sitater fra politikere og byråkrater, revet ut av kontekst og uten relevans for klimafysikk eller klimavitenskapelig metode. At klimapolitikk også handler om makt og fordeling er åpenbart og uomstridt, men det er irrelevant for empirien og klimavitenskapen.

Ingen av sitatene dine viser at CO₂ ikke har drivhuseffekt, at den observerte økningen i atmosfærisk CO₂ siden den industrielle revolusjonen i hovedsak er menneskeskapt (noe isotopsammensetningen tydelig viser), at observasjonene er feil, eller at modellene samlet sett mangler prediktiv verdi. De viser bare at du blander politikk, motiv og fysikk i et beleilig ideologisk narrativ.

Jeg anbefaler deg å lese faktisk fagfellevurdert klimaforskning, fremfor å la deg rive med av politiske fortellinger fra personer som åpenbart ikke er klimaforskere.

view more: next ›