So the argument is that people are jerks who aren’t learning fast enough, so give up on making things objectively better? Yeah, that’s how we make progress in society...

I had the same experience. Manually set to Material and now I’m in business. Thanks for saying something, because I was wondering why my eyes weren’t picking up a difference.

That’s helpful and more complete information than I had. Thank you.

GCN was more powerful than the PS2, no doubt, but the Xbox definitely outpowered both. Microsoft threw off-the-shelf PC parts, including a Pentium 3 processor, into it and sold it at a huge loss. And again, its lack of ability to overtake the PS2 showed that power alone wasn’t the determining factor in sales.

Correct. But for the last three generations (and more if you count handhelds) they haven’t been. The person you were responding to was correct: people do not buy Nintendo consoles for their power. They buy them for their game library.

At the time it was released they most certainly did. And they did for some time after. So it was, indeed, VERY easy to make them. And they still have plenty of those development kits, and some developers are still working on those systems. Your wording implies the architecture makes it difficult to program for. It…

GameCube was more powerful than ONE of its two competitors. Which did nothing to help its sales. However it did outprofit both more successful competitors.

Not really. The architecture was nearly identical to the Xbox 360, and was arguably designed as such to make development easier. It made porting from the then-most-popular full-powered console a breeze for the most part.

Weird, I thought the problem with users was that we want apps not because other people have them, but because WE want them. I don’t care what iOS has in a general sense, I care if the app *I* want is available. This isn’t a sheep situation, this is a situation where I’m a fully-informed consumer aware of his own…

Well then, you’re pretty much SOL for well-supported mobile OSes.

I was under the impression that the Pokemon you see differs based on your level. Is that not correct?

Hyperbole. But major players are cutting at least as fast as anyone’s bothering to join, and most of the joiners aren’t there for Mobile, but for UWP which means it just happens to filter to Mobile if they feel like making the effort. Mobile is on life support and few see any benefit to committing resources to it.

But for how much longer? Everyone seems to be cutting support.

We already know the answer to THAT one.

By this point you’re just trolling for outrage, right? Nobody actually still thinks this is an original or valid perspective after a week of social media being plastered by us making fun of your short-sighted viewpoint, right?

Yep, people are treating it like a failure, when it was dramatically more successful than was intended. It was a test, a proof of concept as you said, and a data collection service. It was always meant to be the framework to then do things like this with. It succeeded.

I went to Disneyland a few weeks ago for the entire day with brand new low-top shoes my girlfriend bought me because I realized I had no shoes that worked with shorts because I’m a walking man stereotype who never buys appropriate clothes for himself. Anyway, predictably, they utterly tore up the backs of my ankles…

I’m sorry, but... WHAT? He picked the wrong suppliers because he mistakenly chose suppliers who aren’t immune to natural disasters and MEXICAN SHOOT-OUTS? Yes, how dare he not pick suppliers who exist outside our mortal realm. How dare he accurately and honestly explain the actual, real reasons there were delays…

I love Anker. I support this.

I love Anker. I support this.

Sure, in hindsight, but in the moment, making sure they weren’t dying was, indeed, higher priority.