Re: Looper development and production costs?

[Tom Ritchford <tom@swirly.com>]

>At 06:19 PM 2001/10/15 -0400, Tom wrote:
>
>>If there's one thing we've learned from this thread, it's
>>that MOST of the people who buy gear don't actually use
>>most of its capabilities and only buy it because it's
>>perceived as cool.
>
>Raises an interesting point.  Should manufacturers bother building 
>anything that appeals to more than the mass-perception of coolness 
>(since that's what sells to the most people)?

Now, now, you are putting words in my mouth.

It needs to serve a unique and useful purpose.
It needs to *define* coolness to the masses!


>>And we learned that if it wasn't for these people, gear would
>>cost twice what it does.
>>
>>Therefore, it behooves a manufacturer to spend the extra
>>$$$ to make it bright and shiny and to appeal to the
>>weak minded...
>
>Not sure that it does.  I'd bet that there are a lot of 
>devices/instruments/controllers that won't see a bottom-line benefit 
>to appealing to the mass-perception of coolness.

It's like a Significant Other.

You get them for the functionality
but the appearance adds significantly to the experience.


Three rules of Indian Theater (from Jeremy Halpern).

1. it must be pleasing to the drunk.
2. it must answer the question, "How shall I live my life?"
3. it must answer the question, "How is the universe put together?"


Your product is not great unless it attracts both the idiot
and the sage!

I'd exclude only a very very few highly technical pieces of gear
from this...  even a Cray computer cluster is designed to be waaay
impressive looking.

        /t


http://whatGoes.com  ................ extreme NY calendar.
http://ax.to/fortune ......... a new fortune every minute.
http://clikTrik.com  .................. Many, many photos.