David Pickett <d...@fugato.com> a écrit : > >Second, in the exploration of why Ambisonics did not > >succeed commercially(yet), it seems to me important > >to understand the whole nature of the success of technological > >products. They succeed if they offer a lot but demand nothing > >of the consumer mentally or next to nothing. Home computers > >took off when one no longer had to program them. Believe me, > >if people had to program in machine language in any sense, > >or even in the DOS sense, there would be no home computer industry > >on the current scale. > > This is the essence of Apple's success--style and > >something good happening but no effort needed AT ALL. > > Rather depressing, but true.
I have to disagree. People are buying because they "believe" and/or because they are forced to, not because it's cheap and/or effortless. We thought, at some point, that computing was about "not programming" (in the "command line" sense); it's not entirely true, even Apple needs it. Now, we'd like to think that tablets are the future. -- Marc _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
