Pyscho wrote:
Pretty sure everyone has a computer. And if you're the one person in the world who doesn't have one, but can afford the $1.50 for the test, you could go down to your local library and use one there.
I'm really glad that you mentioned that again. Earlier, it was argued that it was more cost effective to use the cell phone because it was using the technology of the cell phone. If you can also use any 'ol computer from the library, then that means that this technology already existed and isn't exclusive to the phone. This means, this was created for phone usage because they thought it would be cool to use it as an application on your phone. So, as I said earlier, they are riding the hype of people using worthless applications. Which further proves my point that if you can sell it well, people will buy it.
Jophiel wrote:
Sorry but nope. The simple fact is that the odds are vastly more in my favor that people spending millions of dollars would do adequate market research on it than that they wouldn't. The notable exceptions only stand out because they are exceptions. You are, very simply put, betting on the very long odds.
First, I never said that they didn't do any research, that was a claim that you created by yourself. I simply stated that they would have made money selling it as a separate device because there is a market that would go for it. What has happened was that there was decision made and they went with their decision. I don't know what their results yielded and I am not pretending that I do know, but there is no denying the fact that there isn't enough money in the world to accurately predict the mass minds of people. Look how much money, effort and experience politicians put into campaigning, then a celebrity can view their opinion in the public and people follow suit. Remember the Oprah Winfrey "beef scandal", she made an indirect comment and it effected sales.
You can't call everything that I've mentioned an exception. Not only were they not off the wall examples, but they were your examples. If all of these examples are "hot items", you can't claim that it's all a coincidence. History and the present is against you on this. Once again, have you not seen an infomercial? If you can sell it well, people will buy it. Once an object has made a name for itself, the first few updates are usually the biggest, but after that, they are usually minor to no changes, yet the prices will increase. This is because it is a known fact that people will buy it. Major changes only follow after they start to lose their target audience.
Belkira wrote:
But I have a smart phone. So that argument is moot. Saying, "They're assuming everyone has a smart phone, so this is just stupid" is an idiotic argument. "A market" is left out in every product produced. So what...?
You're just grasping at straws here. Also? Every time you post and say, "Aha! I've thought of something else!!" it reinforces my notion that you think way too much of this place and our collective opinions.
You're just grasping at straws here. Also? Every time you post and say, "Aha! I've thought of something else!!" it reinforces my notion that you think way too much of this place and our collective opinions.
Soooo by you claiming it's moot is your way of saying that you wouldn't buy a phone if you didn't have it. I'm not grasping at straws, it's just that the more that I think about the presented arguments, the more I realized how its flawed. Forgive me for thinking out aloud.
When I asked you a hypothetical question that was in your favor, you answered it saying that you would use your phone and save $20. When I asked you a hypothetical question that wasn't in your favor, you respond that it's moot because you already have a phone. Under the same line of thinking, the first point should have equally been moot as you already purchased the pregnancy test and probably didn't have a smart phone when you purchased them.
So, basically you're just shaping answers to benefit your point.