Commander X16

On 10/7/2021 at 2:43 PM, maktos said:

If David knew what the heck he was going to do, 

 

I don't know. 

 

If you've watched his videos, you know how he works, and this seems to be the way he does it.

Seems like a hill-climbing algorithm to me.  Certainly is not a top-down style.  If you know what I mean.

 

Has 8BG ever given you the impression that he works in the manner you suggest? 

On 10/7/2021 at 1:43 PM, maktos said:

conclusion based on logic and the facts as they are known publicly

I missed that part before. I think you may be confusing "logic" and "intuition". Until David reveals a reason why he hasn't provided more information here, in a thread with going on 700 responses, you can only suppose why. Anything else is guesswork.

On 10/7/2021 at 3:14 PM, Scott Robison said:

... in a thread with going on 700 responses ...

At least I see the keen interest in the X16 here.

 

Allow me to put on my Vulcan ears and channel Spock:

"Given that many serious, possibly insurmountable problems were brought up by David in his August 19th announcement, and he himself was seeking advice on how to proceed,

as if he himself no longer knew how to proceed (!), even mentioning alternative products that hadn't been brought up publicly before,

and the fact that some will interpret this announcement with the most negative outlook,

If the reality is, in fact, better than that worst-case outlook, it would be logical to dispel those worst fears, especially given the zero cost of making such an update."

If David wishes to inspire confidence in this project, it is not logical to do everything in your power to create an environment of uncertainty, speculation, confusion, and limbo. Adding updates would only help: every bit information from the very source would only serve to clear up a myriad of speculations. It would be like shedding light on different areas in a dark room. 

On 10/7/2021 at 2:34 PM, maktos said:

"Given that many serious, possibly insurmountable problems were brought up by David in his August 19th announcement, and he himself was seeking advice on how to proceed,



as if he himself no longer knew how to proceed (!), even mentioning alternative products that hadn't been brought up publicly before,



and the fact that some will interpret this announcement with the most negative outlook,



If the reality is, in fact, better than that worst-case outlook, it would be logical to dispel those worst fears, especially given the zero cost of making such an update."



If David wishes to inspire confidence in this project, it is not logical to do everything in your power to create an environment of uncertainty, speculation, confusion, and limbo. Adding updates would only help: every bit information from the very source would only serve to clear up a myriad of speculations. It would be like shedding light on different areas in a dark room. 

I guess the way one reads the Aug 19 announcement depends on one's philosophy: It the glass half full or half empty?

Certainly you are correct, for some people, news is necessary to have confidence. Other people have different ways of viewing a lack of updated information. "No news is bad news" or "no news is good news" or "no news is simply no news".

If one can't satisfy everyone, that's another good reason to wait until you have concrete information to share.

On 10/7/2021 at 3:39 PM, Scott Robison said:

Certainly you are correct, for some people, news is necessary to have confidence. Other people have different ways of viewing a lack of updated information. "No news is bad news" or "no news is good news" or "no news is simply no news".

If the August 19th announcement hadn't been made, I would have 100% agreed with you.

But that is NOT the same situation we are in today. The situation totally changed when he made that announcement. Something fundamental.

When the last news was 100% uncertainty and BAD NEWS, any future lack of news is not good or neutral, but bad. I'm sorry, that's just the way it works.

I'd like you to give me another real-life example where someone dishes out some serious, wet-blanket, party-killing bad news, then others are supposed to interpret "no news" as either "good news" or "no news". I'll be waiting.

 

 

If I were running a business, developing a hardware product that took years, I would expect investors/supporters/early adopting customers to be patient, trust the process, have faith, etc. and I wouldn't be unreasonable.

But if I put on the company homepage one day, "I don't know, guys. We have shortages. This whole idea really isn't feasible. It would take too much space for storage, and I'm not looking to start a warehouse. Maybe I should develop this other product over here instead? Do you guys REALLY want this product? I don't know how I'm going to bring this product to market. What do you think I should do? (Give them a few options)" and basically throw everything up in the air, then give NO UPDATES for 49 days, what do you suppose MOST investors would say/do?

There might be a couple sanguine temperaments saying "Oh I'm sure everything will work out! ?"

But for every one of those sanguine types, there would be at least 20-30 saying "OH CRAP. I hope we don't lose everything we've invested in this thing."

On 10/7/2021 at 3:16 PM, maktos said:

When the last news was 100% uncertainty and BAD NEWS, any future lack of news is not good or neutral, but bad. I'm sorry, that's just the way it works.

That's the way it works to you. That is your intuition talking. You could be right! I could be wrong. I don't think so. This is not a black and white situation. There are shades of gray, and the fact that you are so convinced that this is the only possible explanation I think continues to demonstrate why one would be cautious to share information that might be misunderstood.

As for "investors" ... I think there are a few people who've invested actual funds in this, primarily David himself and a few trusted associates who are helping to bring this to life. The time people have spent learning the platform, using the emulator, writing software can't be completely disregarded, but this is not a situation where David has taken money from investors and thrown his hands in the air and said "oh well". I pledged to a kickstarter that ended that way: https://www.slashgear.com/superscreen-kickstarter-fails-takes-2-5m-down-the-drain-11549706/ $2.5M gone with nothing to show for it (except for probably some nice stuff for the guy who ran it).

No one here that is opining has lost money on this. Perhaps some opportunity cost, but this project was never going to be one that made people fortunes. It exists to fill a niche for a relatively inexpensive retro-style platform that people can use to get into retro without having to pay exorbitant prices for 30+ year old hardware that might die at any time. Heck, I just on a lark bid on a lot of three non-functional C=64s on ebay a few days ago for parts / repair. I said I'd pay up to $50 for the lot. It's up to $120 (plus $60 s/h) with days left. I can't even buy a broken C=64 for a "reasonable" price.

I do understand where you're coming from, but I think your black and white thinking on the subject is out of line with reality. I guess perception is reality to the perceiver, but I think to most of us it's not as dire as you think.

<snip> deleted, because I wasn't aware of David's answer on Aug-21</snip>

I can see why David doesn't tend to respond to messages on here, he wouldn't get anything done, bearing in mind any time he did respond another twenty responses to his response would appear within the hour.

He'll have to be extremely cautious about making any kind of announcement for the same reason.

I'm not saying anyone has done anything wrong, it's just natural with so many possibilities for these machines, so many possible combinations of parts, that people will have so many questions.

If David came on here and said, "We're waiting for the component shortages to end, which might be 2-3 years. Have patience, guys. We're still bringing this thing to market, it might just be a while."

That would END IT. At least for all those who matter -- the NON-JERKS. Understand the difference?

When David puts forward some info, and that "isn't good enough for some people", that doesn't matter, because those who don't trust David are jerks who should just leave. We don't need to appease naysayers, trolls, troublemakers, etc.

This is about those who take David at face value -- who trust his leadership, who believe in this project. Those are the only people who matter!

My point is that David himself has expressed grave misgivings about the future of this project -- even if I trust David, I have reason to give up on this project at this point. That was never the case, before August 19th.

And thus far, after giving those grave misgivings and listing all the huge obstacles, DAVID HIMSELF hasn't put forward his new plan for us to trust him with (or not). That's a HUGE difference. 

If you can't see that, then I can't help you.